Require that the short fall funds go to the BIA and IHS and that regualar budget funds staffing and resources at the field level, that reorganizes Headquarters into assistance management, and that reduces the number of Areas and changes those that remain into technical assistance operations. Use short fall funding as the BiA and IHS incentive to complete the restructuring. 10. Require that adverse impact on non-Compact tribes be proven, not just asserted. 11. Require that BIA Headquarters/Area/Agency offices and IHS Headquarters/Agency/Service Unit deliver accurate, comprehensive information to tribes prior to negotiations. Require that the Area/Agency financial information be comprehensive and that the budget information be accurate, balance, include annual reports that link budgets and expenditures, tie to other information, and show all carry over funds and funds returned to Central or the Treasury. 12. Guide tribal share development of every BIA and IHS function and program with a view of what would be the share if there was no (Headquarters, Central, Area, Agency, Service Unit, Construction, etc.) and if all tribes went Self-Governance. 13. Work on BIA Area/Agency office support and IHS Area/Service Unit support for Self-Governance by involving the field and by directing it from the top (from the executive administration and Congress, then from the Assistant Secretary, the Commissioner and Director, and the Policy Council). Make a continuing effort in the field to involve, plan and educate for the actions that must be taken and the changes that must be made, and then involve the field in monitoring, correcting, and supporting those actions and changes. 14. Use the following key points in determining tribal shares: every BIA and IHS dollar is related to services to tribes and tribal shares exist in all BIA and IHS programs and functions; Tribal shares should be calculated from the total funds that are available for the programs and functions; and, Adverse Impact must be shown, not just stated. a. Identify the actual non-contractual Trust Signature and Secretarial Orders activities that required. b. Put time/progammatic requirements on those activities. c. Compare to present field level, Area, Central budgets for staff/resources and determine % that is necessary to set aside for BIA and IHS residual activities. 10 d. Analyze % of budget spent using information like Status of Obligations Reports, identify the budget areas with the highest number and amount of underspent functions, and determine significance re: tribal shares. e. Look at Area functions re: duplication of f. Look at non-IPS and non-recurring program functions re: processing and administering projects, duplication of Central, and the long term of Compact tribes eventually taking over those responsibilities. Consider consolidation using Program Specialist/Grant Officer models that are used in most grant making agencies. 15. Establish a DHHS OSG that is separate from IHS and is at the Secretarial level. The Tribe also recommends that multi-year agreements be provided for those tribes that choose to enter into such agreements after a base tribal budget is negotiated and established. The Tribe recommends that Self-Governance tribes be informed of and be eligible for all new programs and all funding increases in existing programs that occur during the year. And the Tribe recommends that a self-assessment process with standards be established for those Self-governance tribes that wish to use such a process in place of outside evaluation. That concludes our Self-Governance testimony. We support the McCain Bill and support subsequent expanded permanent SelfGovernance legislation that will cover all federal agencies. We look forward to the Congressional response to our requests regarding the Mccain Bill and expanded Self-governance permanent legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and statement directly to you. Each of our Tribal Governments has provided written statements for the record regarding our individual experiences with the Self-Governance Demonstration Project and recommendations for Self-Governance permanent legislation provisions. This joint statement addresses SelfGovernance in the broader context of emerging Clinton Administration policy and long-term Congressional policy considerations for Self-Governance. The administration of Indian Affairs by the Federal Government has undergone tremendous change in the past few years including the recognition and direct involvement of Tribal Governments as a key part of the policy and management of Indian Affairs. We want to thank this Committee for its leadership role in helping to make Tribal Self-Governance a reality in Indian Country. In keeping with this revolutionary and historic milestone in the administration of Indian Affairs, we support the passage of permanent Self-Governance legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. FEDERAL RESTRUCTURING AND THE SELF-GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE Fundamental changes are now underway within the Congress and Executive Branch to re-assess the manner in which the Federal Government manages its obligations to the American people. There has recently been a renewed focus from the Administration and Congress to "re-invent" how the Federal Government is structured and evaluate the quality of service and benefits that it provides to its constituents. In a National Performance Review report, entitled Creating A Government That Works Better & Costs Less, published September 7, 1993, Vice President Gore identifies case after case and situation after situation where the Federal Government, entrenched in traditional practices, is reluctant to question obsolete systems and is adamantly resistant to change. Similar to what is being proposed for all Federal agencies, there is a critical need to restructure the Federal administration of Indian Affairs. Over the past two hundred years, Indian Tribal Governments have been relegated to simply being vendors and contractors for carrying out functions that were designed by Federal officials ostensibly for the benefit of Indian people. Since the first Federal Indian Affairs office opened under the Continental Congress, agencies responsible for administering Indian Affairs have grown to unmanageable levels. Along with losing authority over their own affairs to burgeoning Federal agencies, Tribal Governments have been so overwhelmed with regulatory restrictions that in recent decades the very concept of exercising sovereign powers has been a difficult option throughout Indian Country. While Indian Tribes hold treaties and agreements that have been interpreted by Federal courts as being the supreme law of the land, it is quité typical for Federal officials responsible for the programs and services required by those treaties to diminish Indian Tribes to simply being grantees of Federal services. Much like other branches of the U.S. Government, attempts to restructure and reform the Federal administration of Indian Affairs has been a frequent, if not continuous, effort. In their November 1989 report, the Special Committee on Investigations of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs concluded that at least forty-two Congressional investigations have recommended Federal Indian Affairs reorganization and restructuring. In a single nine-year period alone, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was actually reorganized ten times. Recently, the efforts of the Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal Task Force on Reorganization have become an annual line item in the Federal budget. Addressing the need for Federal Government-wide reform, Vice President Gore stated in his September 1993 report: "The Federal Government seems unable to abandon the obsolete. It knows how to add, but not to subtract." The Self-Governance Demonstration Project was created by Tribes in 1988 from the necessity to change the manner in which Federal Indian policy is developed and administered. SelfGovernance is fundamentally designed to provide Tribal Governments more control and decisionmaking authority over the Federal financial resources provided for the benefit of Indian people. More importantly, Self-Governance fosters the shaping of a "new partnership" between Indian Tribes and the United States in their government-to-government relationship. Unlike most rhetorical studies and restructuring plans of the past, this Tribally-designed Project has effectively merged the authorities of Indian Tribes, as the beneficiary of the trust relationship, with that of the United States, as administrator of the trust, to carry out Federal obligations to Indian people. Self-Governance has proven that substantial change in the management and delivery of services is achievable, although the actual Federal down-sizing and restructuring of Indian Affairs languishes far behind. Given the extended time frames for government change and the inevitable expansion of Self-Governance to other Federal Departments and Agencies, it is logical that the Self-Governance concept be incorporated into the proposed "Reinvent Government Labs" in other Federal institutions. Support from the Committee on this proposal to the Clinton Administration would be most helpful. BUDGETARY PROTECTIONS FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE TRIBES Now in its fourth year of implementation, Self-Governance has allowed Tribes to transfer over $80 million from Federal control to Tribal Governments and, today, represents one of the most significant and continuous reforms in the history of Federal management of Indian Affairs. Unfortunately, while an Office of Self-Governance has been created in the Department of the Interior's Office of the Secretary, the administration of Self-Governance is still being managed by the inefficient systems of the Federal Government. To prevent Self-Governance from being consumed by an unrelenting Federal bureaucracy, the administration of Self-Governance must be separated and insulated from the inevitable bureaucratic entanglements. This experiment in management innovations and empowerment should be allowed to pro-actively and independently proceed. Stable base budgets were established for the Quinault, Lummi, Hoopa Valley and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes in FY 1993 by Congressional direction in the House Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and House-Senate Interior Appropriations Conference Committee reports. Stable base budgets for the four Tribes have been incorporated in the FY 1994 BIA budget, and include base transfers for shortfall funding and contract support. To date, these base budgets do not include provisions for inflation. Unfortunately, Congressional requirement has not deterred the BIA from manipulating our budgets this past year. The establishment of stable base budgets is an important objective for Self-Governance. The stable base budget experiment is expected to streamline negotiations; reduce fiscal adjustments currently required by the line item negotiation process; and, create a predictable financial support process over a multi-year period to facilitate Tribal planning and budgeting. In order to establish simple standards for program budget eligibility, the four Tribes recommend several basic stable base budget policies. A Tribal Self-Governance base budget is defined as the previously-negotiated funding amounts over a series of two to three years' negotiation of a Tribe's Annual Funding Agreement. This negotiated base transfer represents the funding amounts for those programs that the Federal negotiator and Tribe agree be included in the Annual Funding Agreement. This amount may also include a negotiated total lump sum figure for contract support and previous year's shortfall and implementation costs. Upon establishment of a base budget, this amount is included in the development and submission of the Interior Department or Agency budget justification to Congress. Additionally, we propose that the OMB adopt these policies by Circular to assure that the BIA does not manipulate or reduce these base budgets, as directed by the Congress. While the Federal Government and private sector annually make adjustments for inflation, Tribal governments' funding base have generally been excluded from this basic reality consideration. |