Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. DELACRUZ. A fundamental principle of tribal governments has been promoting through self-governance the importance of the government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States. Although presidential, White House, and Indian affairs policy statements since President Nixon have supported this principle-the U.S. Congress, through resolution 76, basically originating in the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, supports this principle-progress has been painfully slow in achieving the meaningful change to bureaucratic attitudes and traditional practices.

Change is certainly not a priority agenda item for a Federal bureaucracy, especially if change involves restructuring, reorganization, and reduction in size required under self-governance. The Federal bureaucracy has controlled, manipulated, and managed Indian affairs for over 200 years, making Indian people the most regulated people in America.

We realize it will take time to untangle twisted policies and cut through the maze of rules and regulations to restore again the original relationship embodied in the Constitution and the original laws of the United States. The self-governance concepts predate the Clinton administration's reinvent Government initiative. The White House will soon understand the resistance of the bureaucracy as it implements those policies.

We support and promote_passage of self-governance permanent legislation for the Interior Department to send a clear message to the Federal bureaucracies and other agencies that self-governance is a policy of the future. This legislation is the next careful step under tribal direction and control to build a future foundation supporting tribal sovereignty and empowerment.

The new Indian affairs foundation must be built carefully, systematically, and methodically on the principles of sovereignty and government-to-government relations. Unfortunately tribal governments must educate each new department and agency involved in self-governance in the basic concepts. Often, we must return to Congress to give clear instruction to the Federal system, including the courts, that our relationship with the United States is unique, founded in our treaties and the congressional laws.

Why is this simple internationally recognized and respected principle so difficult for the American people from all walks of life to understand? Why can't our differences be appreciated and supported? Sadly, this rejection of our status and rights is tested daily by those paid to serve and protect our interests.

We have made measurable progress in moving self-governance principles forward in the Department of the Interior. As the tribes enter the implementation stages with the Indian Health Service, all the new tactics and obstacles emerge to frustrate our efforts. New bureaucracies in the near future will create traps and shadows, incentives to pull us backwards. With congressional support and understanding, we will conquer these Federal frontiers.

Also, we request that our proposed findings and policies be included in the title IV permanent authorization to reduce the bureaucracy's well-known capacity to misinterpret and misunderstand congressional intent for its own interests. We want to avoid congressional micro-management of the Federal agencies as this process has its own time-consuming entanglements. We support the

proposed Federal negotiated rulemaking process, in theory, to avoid constant congressional oversight and involvement, in theory. I am very concerned, however, that this negotiated rulemaking embraces the principles of negotiation. It embraces the principles of negotiation between nations. Tribal governments are not constituent citizens corporations, associations, organizations, vendors, or whatever other labels have been thrown over us in the past. We don't want an inappropriate process imposed upon tribes due to the Federal convenience of past practices.

If negotiated rulemaking is to work, we must be provided the authority to creatively establish government-to-government rulemaking.

The same concern applies to the waiver of regulations process. With the bureaucracy's reluctance to support tribally developed management procedures and guidelines, we are still exercising selfadministration in the name of self-governance. Despite assurances, promises, an established waiver approval process-the Federal bureaucracy will cling to the control. We want to govern ourselves according to our own management principles. We have yet to reach this formidable obstacle.

That is the one reason we have removed the term "program" to describe the permanent tribal self-governance legislation that we support.

In conclusion, we will return to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in the near future as we seek to build on the self-governance foundation. We truly appreciate your patience, understanding, and support as tribes and Congress together create logical, meaningful Indian affairs policy and establish true government-to-government relations. I do hope this legislation passes.

I wanted to make some comments that were made by the people from IHS and the BIA.

I don't know who would sit at the table-anyone who had experience or knowledge in negotiating-when I don't feel all the cards are on the table. I don't know-and nobody in IHS has been able to show me yet-that the total budget is on the table, that the Congress appropriates and is allocated down to the Indian Health Service. We need to look at it and analyze it to come up with an appropriate percentage share.

When we went into the self-governance demonstration project in 1988, it took us almost 2 years of demonstration and research to basically get a handle on it. We weren't sure that we had a total handle on the BIA budget. The Indian Health Service budget is much more complex.

I think we start at the table not as equals. It is not a level playing field.

The other thing-in our working conference and I wasn't there but I don't think the agencies still get it. We are talking government. We are talking government-to-government. It is not an agency developing rules and ideas and plans, giving them to us, meeting with us and talking about them, and call that consultation. We have an administration and a Congress that says that we are in a partnership and that is the way we must move forward. I don't see this happening with the Indian Health Service as we started our meetings with them. When I look at what I believe—

and I have fought for all my life-to be peaceful relationships— that we get back to what the Constitution says our relationship is according to our treaties—and that is not only on the tribal/Federal relationship process, but also the relationship with the States, as per the Constitution and the different enabling acts.

Through a peaceful process of real true government-to-government-not this transfer of programs-this is beyond programs and dollars. I have said this many times.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. DeLaCruz appears in appendix.]

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Joe. We will try to do our best to help you get the necessary information that you need.

Michael Pablo.

Michael, it is good to see you. I haven't seen you since yesterday. [Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PABLO, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION, PABLO, MT

Mr. PABLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Michael Pablo, chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. It is always a pleasure to know that we have a friendly ear in the Senate. There has been a lot of progress in the last few years. I need to thank both you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Inouye as chairman of the committee. Indian country appreciates that. Thank you.

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you.

Mr. PABLO. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes were one of the original 10 self-governance tribes. We attempted to set up a different process to work toward self-governance. We ended up with a concept that we thought was very good, and that was a concept that was based on a budget put together at the local level, based on need, with a yearly review to see if everything we had been working on was carried out in that year.

The Assistant Secretary at that time, Dr. Eddie Brown, signed our agreement. We worked for 2 years on the agreement. Then when we began to come back to Washington, DC to negotiate on that, the BIA reneged on that whole idea. I guess it was too novel of an idea to have something based on needs and have an evaluation of it.

So what we then did was to move into the present form of compacting that we have. We now have a compact both with IHS and BIA that went into effect October 1 of this year.

There are a lot of issues out there yet remaining that we need to look at to make sure that we can get figured out for all the other tribes who wish to come into this process. One of the issues we need to look at is to make sure that the Federal Tort Claims Act covers everything within a compact. We had several programs contracted through Public Law 93-638 with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA said that those 638 contracts were not covered by Federal Tort Claims Act. However, when we compacted with the BIA, the BIA said that we were covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

IHS, on the other hand-we had several programs contracted through Public Law 93-638 with IHS. They said that those 638 contracts were covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act, but when we got into negotiations with IHS on the compact, they said that a compact was different from a 638 contract, so therefore it wasn't covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

And that was all under the previous legislation. So in order to fix that, there is language now in the Appropriations Act for this year to fix that. Maybe we need to make sure that is in here so that tribes know which way we need to go on that issue.

Another thing I think we need look at is some sort of a process for conflict resolution. If there are objections or if tribes do not feel that the budget information was correct, or tribes weren't getting a fair share of that, we need to have some process-maybe for a third party mediator to come in and say, "This is what we have."

Another thing I think we need to make sure we can do is have the waiver for regulations. A lot of times, that hinders tribes because one blanket policy does not fit the needs of each and every reservation. I believe-like on Flathead, we have proven what tribes can do when they have that ability to work on that. We got a waiver for the Federal acquisition regulations on our safety of dams program. I believe we are one of the first tribes in the country to contract for safety of dams.

We got a waiver and that has worked very well. We also at this time thank the committee for the help they gave us to keep the safety of dams program within BIA. I think it is a proven success and shows again what tribes can do because when the Bureau of Reclamation attempted to take that over, we had much support to keep that within BIA.

We finished our first project last year. It was Black Lake Dam on the Flathead. The Bureau of Reclamation engineers estimated the project at $3 million and we brought it in at $1.7 million. I apologize for saving $1.3 million, but maybe we can look forward on that.

I think another area we need to look at is the funding issue. Tribes in the self-governance process-there is great concern with funding, not only from those tribes but from the tribes who are not in the process. I think we need to make sure that there is no reduction in services to other tribes anywhere because of self-governance. Maybe a possible way of doing that is to look at the funding within the other sister agencies of the Department of the Interior. I do not know of one sister agency of the BIA that is not in a conflict or that does not have a potential for a conflict of interest with Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We probably spend 30 to 40 percent of our time and budget fighting other agencies within the Department of Interior to protect tribal treaty rights. Whether that is through water rights, Bureau of Reclamation, land use issues, mining issues-it is there. Maybe we can look at a number of technicians per acre, let's say, in the Bureau of Land Management, versus what those same positions are within the BIA. The BIA for years has been on the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to funding because of those conflict issues.

I believe at this time as we move forward the need is there to make this a permanent process. I also believe that the Indian

Health Service needs to be brought into this process. Maybe if this isn't the time to do it, maybe next year. If it isn't permanent, then there could be a perception out there that if they don't do anything for a year or two maybe the tribes would go away. I think we need to have a permanency built into that also with Indian Health Service.

I think it is also the evolution that is inevitable, as with this committee. It is great to sit here not at the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, but at the Committee on Indian Affairs for the Senate. I think it is just a normal process of evolution and we need to move forward and make this process permanent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Pablo appears in appendix.] Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much, Michael.

Chairman Allen, both you and Elmer Manatowa mentioned that there were problems that have been associated with implementation of the project. I understand the problems that you have had in tribe versus BIA. What difficulties have been experienced within the tribes?

Mr. ALLEN. Are you talking about internally in our individual tribes?

I think the biggest obstacle is the education of the tribal community. Usually, the tribal leadership and the administration of the tribes understand that the concept works well to administer these resources and is more consistent with the government-to-government sovereign authority of the tribe. But often the people out there being served by those various programs don't understand that. They have been used to a certain system and sometimes some of the programs get into their own little vacuums and they get threatened.

They get threatened by the notion that this concept means termination or it means out-of-control councils who abuse or misuse the resources. So the biggest need, really, is education so that the tribes have the ability to reach out to their communities through community meetings and small round table discussions, if you will, just to continue to enlighten them about why this concept is consistent with the fundamental theories that have been advocated for years to the elders and the communities.

It is just a change in concept. There is a queasiness and uneasiness in there. That is the biggest issue and there are other smaller issues. There are programmatic vacuums that can be a bit of a problem because they get sort of aloof from the tribe and get into their own little turf. As soon as you move the money into the control of the council, then they make those prerogatives and that enters into a new arena because they now have control over the allocation of those resources.

I think most tribes are working their way through it. Some who are just now entering are experiencing some problems with that, but that is basically it: The understanding of it.

Mr. MANATOWA. Mr. Chairman, the problems that I had alluded to earlier-not identifying these internally within the tribe itself. The problem we have had is with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in getting them to provide us the information needed so that we can

« PreviousContinue »