[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF KEVIN GOVER TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FOR 
                             INDIAN AFFAIRS

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise today as a member of the Senate 
Indian Affairs Committee to express some concerns that I have about the 
nomination of Kevin Gover to be the new Assistant Secretary of Interior 
for Indian Affairs, the head of the BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  I have consistently taken the position that in my experience the BIA 
is an agency that is in dire need of serious reform to make it more 
effective and more responsive to the needs of the tribes that it is 
established to serve. I therefore have a certain admiration for anyone 
who is willing to undertake this task, because it is a tough one. It is 
one that is difficult. Additionally, in this particular case, Mr. 
Gover's personal qualifications recommend him very highly for this 
position. He also has a Wyoming connection, which of course I am 
interested in. Over several years he has represented the Eastern 
Shoshone Tribe in several legal and legislative matters.
  However, it wouldn't come as any surprise to my colleagues on that 
committee that given William Safire's recent op-ed piece on the Gover 
nomination in the New York Times, some questions have to be raised and 
are raised with respect to his nomination. According to the Safire 
piece, in private practice and representing the Tesuque Pueblo of New 
Mexico, Mr. Gover was present at one of President Clinton's infamous 
White House coffees. Soon therefore, the Pueblo made two contributions 
to the Democratic National Committee totaling $50,000. Some time later, 
Mr. Gover was nominated for this position.
  An examination of the nominee's FBI file leads me to conclude that he 
committed no illegal acts. I believe at the very least they constitute 
an appearance of impropriety which should make many of us 
uncomfortable. I have no argument, of course, with the right of 
individuals to make political contributions to the party of their 
choice. That is provided by law and should be. I personally believe, 
however, it is a little unseemly for tribal governments to do so, to 
either party. It is no secret that all but two or three tribes in this 
country have little, if any, extra money to throw around. The 
overwhelming majority, even with Federal help, can hardly meet the day-
to-day needs of their members--needs like shelter, health care, or 
education. There is a constant press for additional funding for those 
needs.
  When a tribal government can't meet the basic needs of its people, 
then I seriously question the morality of that government making a 
political contribution.
  Another fact that lends itself to the appearance of impropriety in 
this case is the special relationship between the tribes and the 
Federal Government. This relationship is like the relationship between 
a trustee and beneficiary; the United States has a unique fiduciary 
responsibility to the tribes and their members. Congress has turned 
over responsibility for day-to-day regulation of tribal affairs to the 
executive branch. So I can't think of many circumstances where national 
campaign contributions--especially to the party of a sitting 
President--would not carry with them the appearance of impropriety, an 
appearance of unseemly influence--the idea of a beneficiary influencing 
the trustee in its work.
  And what about the appearance of a government body representing 
members of different political beliefs--in this case a tribal 
government--making a monetary contribution to a national political 
party on behalf of all of its members, whether or not that's their 
political belief. We prohibit Federal agencies from engaging in any 
lobbying efforts with taxpayer funds because it would look unseemly. We 
prohibit unions from making political contributions to one particular 
party with members' dues. Mr. President, the question might be posed 
that since it appears that nothing illegal took place in Mr. Gover's 
case, why all the fuss? My answer, Madam President, is that oftentimes 
the appearance of impropriety can be just as damning as an actual 
illegality.
  The news these days is full of examples illustrating this 
conclusion--the subject of Senator Thompson's hearings, which just 
recently ended with credible allegations against Secretary Babbitt that 
tribal campaign contributions influenced the denial of a gaming license 
to a Midwestern tribe.
  In order to get answers to some of my concerns, I met with Mr. Gover 
at length on November 4. Our conversation was somewhat reassuring to 
me, and left me feeling that my argument is not with Mr. Gover, who as 
far as I can tell at this time did nothing illegal, but with a system 
that allows tribes to make these kinds of donations.
  So, Madam President, should the Gover nomination come to a vote on 
the floor, I do not plan to object. The BIA has been without leadership 
for a long time, something that Bureau can ill afford, and Mr. Gover is 
eminently qualified to lead it. But he can be sure while I support him, 
I and other Members will be watching closely to make sure he delivers 
on his promises to reform the Bureau, to make it more responsible and 
cost efficient, and to help untangle the present mess in Indian gaming.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], is 
recognized.

                          ____________________