[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1435-E1436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2107

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 16, 1997

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday in opposition to 
Representative Istook's amendment to H.R. 2107, the appropriations bill 
for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. The amendment 
would have prohibited new lands from being placed into trust for 
American Indians unless the tribes entered into agreements concerning 
the collection of certain taxes with local and State governments. I was 
not able to give my entire statement in the time allotted, and had 
submitted my entire statement to be included in the Congressional 
Record. This was not done. The following is my entire statement as I 
intended it to be entered in the Record: 


       Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the Istook/
     Visclosky amendment which would prohibit the use of BIA funds 
     to transfer any new land into trust unless a binding 
     agreement is reached between Indian tribes, states, and local 
     governments regarding state and local excise taxes on retail 
     sales to non-Indians on new trust land.
       There are many reasons to oppose this amendment. First, as 
     a matter of procedure, this is more than a matter of setting 
     a level of appropriations. This amendment sets legislative 
     policy on a subject under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Resources.
       The issue of whether any additional statutory conditions 
     should be placed on transfers of land into trust for Indian 
     tribes deserves public hearings and the deliberations of the 
     committee of jurisdiction. The subject of this amendment has 
     not been considered by the Committee of jurisdiction. By 
     proceeding with an appropriations rider, we lose the value of 
     public input to Congress available through committee 
     hearings, and those of us who serve on authorization 
     committees are again locked out of the full deliberative 
     process.
       Many of you have seen the conflicting statements of the 
     many ``Dear Colleague'' and other letters which have 
     been circulated over the past ten days. In many cases, 
     these letters are in direct conflict with one another. 
     This is happening because there have been no hearings 
     through which facts can be sought and properly reported 
     from the committee of jurisdiction to the House. Now I ask 
     you, is this the best way to set the nation's policy? When 
     voting on a subject of this significance, wouldn't you be 
     more comfortable having the benefit of prior legislative 
     deliberations?
       Turning now to the merits of the legislation, I believe it 
     is not controverted that current law and regulations mandate 
     that the Secretary of the Interior provide notice to state 
     and local governments prior to making a final determination 
     on taking Indian land into trust status. Additionally, the 
     Secretary must consider the impact on state and local 
     governments of removal of the land from the tax rolls.
       Furthermore, state and local governments who disagree with 
     a decision of the Secretary can appeal adverse decisions 
     within the Department of the Interior and in the federal 
     courts. If the land proposed to be transferred into trust is 
     not part of a current reservation and the proposal is for 
     economic development, the transfer is subject to a higher 
     standard of scrutiny. This is a sufficient regulatory scheme 
     already in place to protect the rights of state and local 
     governments, and it keeps the negotiations between the Indian 
     tribes and the United States, which is consistent with our 
     government to government relationship.
       If this amendment were enacted into law, state and local 
     governments would be given an absolute veto over all future 
     transfers of land into trust status. This is a significant 
     change in national policy, and as I noted earlier, this 
     change would be made with our only deliberations being 
     today's debate.
       Finally, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of equity, I find it 
     very disturbing that we are debating today, yet another 
     attack on the American Indian. I fear that efforts like this 
     are a renewal of the efforts of Congress' in prior decades 
     when actions were taken to make sure our first Americans are 
     never given the opportunity to achieve success.
       There was a recent advertisement I heard that pretty well 
     summed up our treatment of this country's Indians. It went 
     something like this: two hundred years of exploitation and 
     neglect, more than 700 broken treaties, $2 billion in tribal 
     trust funds lost or mismanaged, $200 million in funding cuts 
     last year, and now politicians want to levy new taxes against 
     tribal governments. Haven't they paid enough?
       The ad was a brutally-accurate summary of our past 
     treatment of the American Indians. The question for today is, 
     do we continue along that destructive line of reasoning, or 
     do we provide today's tribes with the opportunity to 
     determine their future through their own self-initiative.


  Most Indian reservations contain lands which are inholdings, plots of 
land within the reservation which were sold out of trust decades ago 
pursuant to the 1887 General Allotment Act. In many instances these 
plots contain homes occupied by tribal members who have inherited them 
or acquired them but have not had them taken back into trust by the 
Secretary of the Interior. Many tribes are extremely poor and have been 
in the process of having these homesites taken back into trust for 
decades.
  The tribes are not doing this to set up truck stops or tobacco shops 
or any other form of commercial operation. Usually the tribes are 
merely working to reacquire their lands and to insure that those lands 
and the Indians who live on them will be eligible to participate in the 
various Bureau of Indian Affairs programs which apply only to trust 
lands.
  Tribes are doing this for reasonable, practical purposes. The Bureau 
of Indian Affairs operates road maintenance programs, environmental 
services programs, real estate services programs, water resources 
programs, and a large number of other programs which only apply to 
trust lands. Tribes want their members to participate in and benefit 
from these programs.
  However, if the Istook amendment is adopted and the Secretary of the 
Interior is precluded from taking any of these former trust lands back 
into trust, we will eventually have a new second class of citizen in 
this Nation. If the Istook amendment is adopted we will have some 
Indians living the life of the poorest of the poor who don't even 
qualify for various Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. We will have 
Indians living on Indian reservation land which does not qualify for 
any Indian program.
  This is absurd, Mr. Chairman.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to prevent a handful of Indians 
from setting up businesses which do not collect State and local sales 
and excise taxes. He is trying to resolve a problem that exists in a 
very few instances in a few States.
  The vast majority of lands taken into trust by the Secretary of the 
Interior have nothing whatsoever to do with diesel fuel or tobacco or 
tax advantages. Instead of solving a problem common to only a few 
individuals, this amendment would create a whole new level of second-
class citizens. This amendment would create a class of Indian which 
lives on lands within a reservation but receives no Bureau of Indian 
Affairs services; a class of Indian which receives no State sewer, no 
State water, no State police protection, no State fire protection, on 
other State services except State tax collection services.
  Mr. Speaker, few lands have ever been enacted which would do so much 
damage while solving so few problems.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma apparently is trying to stop Indian 
Tribes from setting up businesses which do not collect State and local 
sales and excise taxes. He is trying to resolve a problem that exists 
in a very few instances in a few States.
  However, this limitation on appropriated funds would impact all 
Indian tribes in all States. The way I understand this amendment, not a 
single acre of land could be taken into trust, anywhere, for any 
reason. If that is not the first step toward ending any possibility of 
economic development for the poorest of this Nation's poor, I don't 
know what is.
  In my opinion, this draconian limitation on appropriated funds is far 
worse than the problem.
  I understand that a few Indian businesses are selling diesel fuel and 
tobacco and a few other types of merchandise without collecting

[[Page E1436]]

State and local sales and excise taxes. I can appreciate how this gives 
a competitive advantage to a handful of Indian businesses. I will 
support a bill which will cure this problem to the satisfaction of all 
of the interested parties.
  But, the vast preponderance of land being taken into trust by the 
Secretary of the Interior has nothing whatsoever to do with tax 
advantages. Most parcels of land being taken into trust are small 
tracts consisting of an acre or two which lie within an existing Indian 
reservation, non-trust land scattered like a checkerboard between trust 
lands. Economically fencing, accessing, monitoring, and developing 
these checker boarded lands is extremely expensive, almost impossible.
  The Interior Department spends millions upon millions trying to block 
up these lands and put them into useful production. But because of the 
1887 General Allotment Act which allowed Indian lands to be sold and 
thereby taken out of trust, the Department has to take these lands back 
into trust.
  The effect of the Istook amendment would be catastrophic for any 
Indian tribe which is trying to have even the smallest plot of land 
taken back into trust.
  This spending limitation is aimed at solving a commercial problem 
which many of the States have already solved. Even Oklahoma has worked 
out most of its problems with these tax havens owned by an Indian 
tribe.
  However, this limitation on appropriated funds ignores all of these 
solutions. Instead, this language would completely eliminate the 
Secretary of the Interior's ability to take any land into trust, in any 
State.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not only unnecessary but also wrong. 
The Indians of this Nation suffer the highest unemployment anywhere. 
Health care, child care, economic opportunity, and just about any other 
social service available to the average American is barely available on 
a marginal basis to Native Americans.
  What we do not need is this strangle hold on the Secretary of the 
Interior.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Istook amendment.

                          ____________________