control, for example, is a concern of all three governments and by its nature transcends geographical and jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, Indian treaties often guarantee rights, such as that of fishing, that may be exercised under tribal regulation outside of Indian country.

Against this backdrop of checkerboard jurisdiction, we have found that continuing tribal-State-Federal bodies can serve as catalysts for cooperative arrangements that ameliorate some of the problems arising from fractionated jurisdiction. A small example from Arizona will indicate what I mean. In Arizona, tribal judges who were members of the tribal-State-Federal forum pointed out that, although State resources were theoretically available for mentally ill Indians, the State Hospital would not accept civil commitments ordered by tribal judges. At first some state judges in the Forum agreed to accept tribal court orders as a matter of full faith and credit, and issue state court commitment orders based on the tribal orders. This informal arrangement solved the

problem in the short run. The Forum then suggested State legislation to remedy the problem. With tripartite backing, the legislation easily passed and the State Hospital now accepts tribal court commitment orders directly, as a matter of state law. Problems in enforcing federal law in Indian country in Arizona also have been addressed by the forum. In these matters we have enjoyed great assistance from Attorney General Reno. Arizona, the United States Attorney, who is a Forum member ex officio, arranged to appoint tribal prosecutors as special assistant U.S. Attorneys so they could bring non-Indian offenders

In

before a federal Magistrate Judge when they committed minor crimes against Indians or Indian property. Neither the tribe nor the State had jurisdiction over such crimes, but federal enforcement officers were not available to police such misdemeanors; the tribal officers were the ones on the scene. The new arrangement is working well, and is being duplicated in other jurisdictions. On another front, our Clerk of the Federal District Court in Phoenix has conducted several workshops for tribal court administrative personnel, to help in establishing efficient systems of docketing and case management in tribal court.

These and other such efforts have been successful, but they are modest and necessarily local. Staff and administrative support are lacking, and must be borrowed. Many of the jurisdictional and enforcement problems are systematic, and require cooperative solutions on a multi-State or multi-tribe scale. Some of the problems are caused by federal judicial limitations on tribal court jurisdiction, for which legislative solutions ought to be carefully considered. The national Joint Tribal-Federal-State Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs proposed by S.2097 would fill these needs. It would be a continuing body, able to acquire expertise and perspective in addressing jurisdictional and governmental problems arising among the tribes, the States, and the Federal Government. Those of us who have been working at the local level have seen what fine results can come from cooperation between these three groups. When the tribes, the States, and the Federal Government all address problems together, they can solve many intergovernmental

not

problems without ignoring or trampling upon the rights or interests of any of the three. The key is that the solutions are voluntary, they are worked out by the parties actually affected, and they are thought through. The process works; we have proved that. At the national level, we need only the instrument just to propose national solutions but also to stimulate local ones on a continuing and consistent basis. The proposed Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs will serve that purpose admirably, and help to accomplish these worthwhile cooperative goals.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you.

Good morning Chairman Campbell and distinguished members of the Committee. I am Apesanahkwat, Chairman of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. It is an honor to be invited before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to present the views of the Menominee Tribe on S. 2097, legislation which would provide new methods for resolving conflicts between Indian tribal governments and others, and assure that there are adequate remedies for tort claims against a tribe.

I would like to begin by commending you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing this bill which, in our view, addresses the concerns that have been expressed about tribal sovereign immunity and the need for effective methods for resolving disputes between tribes and others in a manner that does not damage tribal interests. Unlike other proposals that have been made, your bill carefully avoids any invasion of tribal sovereignty and does not expose tribes to the dangers of unbridled litigation. you are well aware, Indian tribes have come under increasing attack for perceived "problems" resulting from tribal sovereign immunity. In several

As

-2

hearings which the Committee conducted on tribal sovereign immunity, there has been testimony that Congress should subject tribes to suit on a variety of matters. These have included such matters as the collection and remittal of retail taxes on sales to non-Indians, remedies against tribes for tortious injuries, and jurisdictional matters related to law enforcement. It is inevitable that, as tribes exercise their rights under the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq.) and strive to strengthen their self-government and economic determination, there will be more interactions with outside interests. Therefore, it is not surprising that conflicts may occasionally occur, and that they must be dealt with. While the Menominee Tribe believes that the problems portrayed at these hearings are grossly exaggerated, we appreciate the approach taken in your bill that addresses any problems that do exist in a manner that does not overturn the long-established federal policy of promoting tribal self-government and self-determination.

I would like to begin my detailed testimony by commenting on Title II of S. 2097 which would provide a new remedy in situations where a tort had been committed by a tribal employee or agent. Your bill would provide a compulsory tribal insurance program, with the insurance to be obtained or provided by the Secretary of the Interior, and a limited waiver of tribal immunity as to tort liability. These provisions would come into play in situations where the matter is not covered by existing liability insurance purchased by the Tribe or covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, pursuant to the provisions of the Indian SelfDetermination Act.

While it is our understanding that most matters involving tribal tort liability are already covered by liability insurance purchased by the Tribe or covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, there are some gaps in this coverage. The Menominee Tribe firmly believes, however, that any legislation that attempts to fill these gaps must give due deference to our sovereign status and the need for continuation of