[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 27579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     INDIAN TRUST MANAGEMENT REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government has repeatedly 
committed to a trustee relationship with the American Indian nations. 
Defined by treaties, statutes, and interpreted by the courts, the trust 
relationship requires the Federal Government to exercise the highest 
degree of care with tribal and Indian lands and resources.
  At first, the Federal trust responsibility served to protect tribal 
lands and tribal communities from intrusion. However, in a push to 
acquire tribal lands and turn Indians into farmers, the Federal 
Government imposed reservation allotment programs pursuant to the 
General Allotment Act of 1887. Under these policies, the selling and 
leasing of allotted lands and inherited interests became primary 
functions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes lost 90 million acres 
and much of the remaining 54 million acres was opened to non-Indian use 
by lease. In sum, the Federal Government took the trust responsibility 
for Indian land upon itself in order to gain the benefit of vast tribal 
lands and resources that were guaranteed by treaty, executive order, 
and agreements for exclusive use by the tribes.
  It is widely known, Mr. Speaker, that the BIA grossly mismanaged and 
squandered billions of dollars worth of resources that should have gone 
to the benefit of often impoverished American Indians. Today, the 
Secretary of the Interior is faced by a mandate from Congress to clean 
up the accounting and management of the Indian trust funds, and by a 
lawsuit alleging a great failure by the Secretary's trust 
responsibility for Indian lands. In response, the Secretary has 
proposed a plan to create a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management 
and remove the trust functions from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this proposal will profoundly affect the 
BIA's management of 54 million acres of Indian lands, the 
administration of trust funds derived from those lands, and nearly 
every aspect of economic development, agriculture, and land management 
within Indian country.
  I am greatly concerned that this plan is repeating the failure of the 
many trust reform efforts of the past. Recently, 193 Indian tribes 
unanimously adopted a resolution opposing this reorganization and 
transfer of the responsibilities of the BIA. I strongly believe that 
this reorganization effort cannot go forward until the Department 
consults with Indian tribes in the development of a business processes 
plan for trust reform, a clear plan for performing the basic trust 
functions of accounting, collections, recordkeeping inspections 
enforcement and resource management. The plan must include policies, 
procedures and controls.
  The fundamental and consistent criticism of the Department's trust 
reform efforts over the last decade has been the failure to develop a 
plan for these business operations of trust management. Instead, the 
DOI has a well-documented record of making short-term cosmetic changes 
in response to court-imposed deadlines or congressional inquiries.
  Mr. Speaker, it is notable that this criticism, a lack of structural 
foundation, is exactly the same as has been leveled against the 
Department's development of the Trust Asset and Accounting Management 
System. All tribal leaders strongly support trust reform and want to 
work constructively with the Department and with Congress to ensure 
sound management of tribal assets. In fact, it is the tribes that have 
the greatest interest in ensuring that tribal assets and resources are 
properly managed.
  In this spirit, I will submit for the Record the following principles 
of the National Congress of American Indians, which should guide the 
Department of the Interior in its trust reform efforts. Secretary 
Norton clearly needs help in attending to the concerns of Native 
Americans, and I would hope these principles would be taken into 
consideration by her.
  I. Put first things first. Creating a new agency does not create 
trust reform, and we unequivocally oppose this proposal as currently 
framed. Tribal leadership urges the Secretary to stop the BITAM 
reorganization effort until there has been an opportunity to actively 
engage and consult with tribes in developing an alternative plan for 
the business processes of trust management in an open and consensus-
based process. Once the Department, working with tribes, has a clear 
definition of the tasks that must be accomplished, then any staff 
reorganization should be based on this business processes plan.
  II. Tribes can help solve this problem, but the Secretary must 
consult and collaborate with the tribal leadership on a government-to-
government, sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Announce and defend is not 
consultation. The Secretary and the tribes should agree that the 
upcoming regional meetings should be to consult on the scope of the 
issues to be addressed. The scoping meetings planned at present are too 
fast and too few, and should be extended to cover all regions, with an 
extended timeline. A Tribal Leaders Task Force on Trust Reform should 
be created and funded, and consultation should include the IIM account 
holders. Consultation must continue throughout the trust reform effort, 
and the discussions must be marked by some fundamental ground rules. 
The tribes insist that the Department agree to deal in good faith, 
avoid self-dealing, and commit to full disclosure of relevant and 
material information (including that relating to known failures and 
losses).
  III. In the past twelve years, Interior has paid more than a billion 
dollars in judgments and settlements for its failures to protect the 
trust assets. The costs of continued failure will far outstrip the 
costs of doing it right. Congress must fund trust reform, and the IIM 
beneficiaries and tribes should not bear the burden of paying to fix 
the trust system. We therefore oppose the Department's proposed 
reprogramming of $300 million within the Fiscal 2002 budget from the 
BIA budget to fund the proposed BITAM, and any other proposal to remove 
funds from the BIA for this purpose.
  IV. The Secretary of Interior should come forward in an honest and 
forthright way to discuss ways of settling on historic account 
balances. If she cannot do this, then Congress must address this issue 
substantively.
  V. Do no harm. Many tribes and BIA field offices have been successful 
in establishing sound trust management for their lands pursuant to the 
tribal self-determination policy. These successful systems should not 
be harmed or modified by the trust reform efforts without tribal 
consent.
  VI. Successful development and resource management in Indian Country 
are linked to Indian control. The future of trust management includes 
increased protection and tribal control over lands and resources, and a 
federal system that provides technical assistance and trust oversight 
on resource management in a flexible arrangement that is driven by self 
determination through the special circumstances, legal and treaty 
rights of each tribe and reservation. Different regions in Indian 
Country and their specialization in grazing, timber, oil & gas, 
commercial real estate, agriculture, fisheries, water, etc., will all 
require different systems that must reflect the unique needs of each.
  VII. The survival of tribal cultures and traditions is dependent upon 
the continuance of tribal lands and resources as durable means to live 
and be Indian. One role of the trustee is to protect the long-term 
viability of tribal lands and resources and ensure that the actions of 
the trustee are consistent with tribal control of the use and 
development of Indian lands.

                          ____________________