the consultation and coordination with tribal governments act is a measure which i introduced with my dear friend congressman dale kildee there's a maxim from ancient rome when all regarding the need for consultation i would not attempt a latin but it translate to what touches all must be approved by all when it comes to issues affecting indian country it seems almost everyone with the exception of ministration understands what this means it means that indian tribes are governments and as such must be consulted with not dictated to mabille simply requires the federal agencies establish a consultation process that is to be used prior to taking an action which would have been a direct effect on the indian tribes it tracks an executive order president clinton issued in two thousand now i expect we will hear opposition this bill from the administration that it is too costly or somehow unworkable unnecessary and generally difficult to implement yet i think traps will say that having new mandates forced  costly unworkable unnecessary and generally very difficult to implement throughout history when indian policy has been made without travel input the results have been failure after failure when in the in tribes were consulted and a part of the process brought the results are successful policies i wish you were not necessary to have this legislation but time after time this administration has set out new policies and mandates with no consultation whatsoever or maybe even war sending out letters notifying tribes of soon to be an ounced policies and calling that action consultation on january third of this year the bureau of indian affairs released a memorandum containing what was called guidance on taking off reservation land into trusts for gaming purposes it instituted a never before discussed or heard of quote commutable distance test in quote every land into trust application where the land being acquired is a commutable distance from the current reservation then immediately a next day several pending land into trust applications were denied the very next day the can share move quickly when it wants to land into trust applications lab around for years a new policy oh excuse me new guidance is released and bam the next day letters go out disapproving several applications now i'm not saying that taking land in the trust far from revise reservation is not a valid issue but there is no law or regulation opposing it and it is a valid issue for discussion for consultation i cannot say whether or not those applications or the but i can't say that the end entraps has spent time and money on them are worthy of consultation another example of the need for this legislation occurred when the national indian gaming commission issued proposed regulations to redefine class to operations without adequate travel consultation the commission then released an economic impact study which showed that their propose regulations were negatively would negatively impact the revenues of indian tribes my understanding is these proposed regulations are even today still under consideration by the commission this disregard  working with tribes in meaningful not quite and i stress meaningful consultation is not working and it is not fair the committee has invited the witnesses here today to testify on this legislation and i promise you we will listen to what you have to say and take your positions and recommendations seriously with that act conclude my statement see no ranking member on the republican side so we'll proceed with the panel and our first panel in regard to h r fifty six deputy secretary u s department of associate deputy secretary u s department carrier the honorable philip hogan the chairman of the national indian gaming association and mr robert mcswain acting director indian health service gentlemen we welcome you to the committee we have your prepared testimonies it will be they will be made part of the record of as if actually stated and you will have five minutes to summarize or proceed as you wish and i see we have in the audience this morning an old friend ted johnson a former staff director and affairs subcommittee as well as a former chairman the national indian gaming commission pad is here visiting with his family from minnesota it's nice to see you back and we welcome you as well that secretary of the department of the interior i'm here today to testify on h r fifty six eight which imposes additional requirements upon the government to government consultation policies already adopted by the federal government for issues affecting indian tribes the department strongly supports government to government consultation however we strongly oppose this legislation i would like to stress of the department is in compliance with the executive order thirteen one seventy five in gauging in both formal and informal consultation with the indian tribes on a regular basis formal consultation takes place when the department is considering new policies or regulations that would have substantial direct effects on the tribes the department also guided by a number of issues by tribal advisory bodies to address tribal specific needs including the bureau of indian affairs tribal budget advisory committee and its subcommittees the indian reservation roads program coordinating committee the self governance advisory committee the special trustees advisory board and the intertribal monitoring association the department's bureau is further take a proactive approach in reaching out to tribal governments to communicate and work with them on a day to day issues and engage in negotiating and negotiate a rule making with the indian tribes where appropriate  specific examples are included in my written testimony that's been entered for the record while the department firmly believes in the need for dialogue in consultation with indian tribes it must object to this attempt to subvert the tenor and requirements of the executive order intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and turn it into a congressional mandate that encourages litigation and creates an unworkable consultation structure we do not believe this legislation is necessary or practical h r fifty six so it would be impractical to administer do its to its breath and impact the bill significantly alters executive order thirteen one seventy five which is only intended to provide internal guidance for federal agencies h r fifty six zero eight would change of the standard when consultation would be required from substantial to likely impact vastly increasing the number of tribes for which the department must consult when taking action further would broaden the scope of what types of action would need formal consultation to cover almost everything in the bureau and the department does h r fifty six so it would turn an executive order that specifically states it's not intended to create causes of action against the government into a statutory mandate that has the potential to create massive amounts of litigation and is one involved in extensive litigation in indian affairs i'd like to avoid that if possible this legislation fails to take into account the vast amounts of time funds and staff resources that would be needed to engage in formal consultation on every agency action it also fails to account for emergency situations and removes the secretary's discretion in summary enactment of this bill would result in halting virtually every action within the department that involves indians even executive communication with congress would be stifled for instance in order to testify on this piece of legislation if it were enacted the department would have to provide ample opportunity for tribes to important recommendations on the department's views on this legislation in order to testify the department would need to one send a dear tribal leader a letter to the leaders of five hundred sixty two federally  nice tribes asking for their important recommendations before the department began to formulate its response and notifying them of at least one consultation session to do we'd have to provide to do tribal leaders at least thirty days for travel comments three we'd have to hold a consultation sessions of which tribal leaders request at least thirty days notice we'd have to review their comments over the next several weeks formulate a propos legislative comments repeat steps one through five and then send a final dear tribal leader letter relating the chosen comments and then finally wait sixty days from the data setting the final dear tribal leader letter before providing legislative comments to this committee sometime around august or september of this year barring any possible delay from litigation on this matter several months would go by before the department would be able to provide a response to proposed legislation or even this simple congressional requires to put it in real terms i would not be able to testify for this hearing until august of this bill were in effect such a formalized system is just on workable in practice the executive order works well because it provides internal management guidance the department has embraced this guidance and gone to great effort to implement its terms in accordance with the directives of executive order thirteen one seventy five each bureau of the department has adopted a consultation policy and as i previously mentioned engages in both formal and informal consultation with indian tribes on a regular basis there is no need for the executive order to be broadened nor for s mighty mean man that won't sign a petition and it's kind of those kinds of feelings that i say i can embrace this legislation that would enhance consultation consultation is important consultation and we obviously have a multitude of issues that we deal with and we can't go and we only have two hundred thirty tribes that are actually engaged in gaming we don't have five hundred sixty two that we do business with every day but obviously can't go to all of those reservations on every issue that arises before us and so we try to schedule regional consultations on a regular basis trying to coordinate those meetings when tribes are gathered together for other purposes they will be meeting out in san diego the national indian gaming association meeting later this month and they will be out in reno for the meeting and we send letters we identify the issues that we would like to discuss and invite tribes to come speak with us many tribes accept those invitations many do not and we attempt to accommodate their schedules and as we do that and we sit down we try to tell them what we are doing and we invite their views on the topics occasionally we will schedule session that will be specific to one particular issue this gaming classification  impractical and i'm afraid that requiring giving a cause of action if there's a challenge to the quality of the consultation would be problematic i think the concern the tribes often have with and more so than did we adequately consult was that we didn't agree with everything they said when we did consult and i don't think that you can condemn the process just because  the didn't didn't agree i think we did consult and we often are sympathetic to their points of view i'd like to see tribes make as much money as they possibly can gaming and not have to send the states a nickel but we've got statutory rules we've got to apply and sometimes we can't then go where they'd like us to go in doing that and we have honest disagreements with respect to how that works the legislation also  benefit of indian people building houses or providing roads and things of that nature we're a regulatory agency now we ought to consult with the tribes who make the rules when it comes to time to actually apply those rules  don't think you can hold a consultation each and every time that you make a decision that would in effect adjudicate some of those issues that are before us and i'm not sure that under the bill is drafted that's adequately  said we do a lot of consultation we have i think an effective policy is probably not perfect and we'll try to do better but if our hands become tied and we get sued every time somebody questions whether the consultation was adequate i think things would grind to a halt that wouldn't be good for indian gaming it wouldn't be good for indian country it wouldn't be good for indian people but we certainly are supportive of the concept and attempt to adhere strictly to the executive order and our adopted consultation policy thank you mr chairman i'd be happy to respond to any questions you might have chairman members of committee good morning i'm robert mcswain the acting director of the indian health service i'm pleased to have the opportunity to testify on nature five six zero weight of bill to establish regular and meaningful consultation now to h r five six zero eight the i ches strongly opposes this bill because it adds unnecessary administrative administration burden that would divert resources from the provision of health care services as so forth in my prepared statement here five six is overly broad in scope in defining policies that have tribal implication lays little or no discretion to the i just director by making all agency decisions subject to tribal council formalizing all contacts between tribes in the i h s thereby diverting limited resources away from the mission of health care on the other hand the bill is too narrow it only focuses on the be part here and the national and gaming commission i'm aware of certainly a lot of other departments that are doing great work and in consultation with tribes and their omitted consultation between the department of health and human services and tribes can be traced back fifty years to public law eighty three five sixty eight known as the transfer act several references there and require the secretary t w to obtain the consent of governing the governing  body of the tribe or its organized council before closing a hospital or to contract the provision of services with private or other non federal health agencies or organizations so we have been duty bound to consult with tribes for at least fifty years fifty plus years consultation with the indian tribes will occur to the extent practical and permitted by law before any action is taken that will significantly affect indian tribes such acts which refer to policies that have tribal implications and substantial direct effects on one tribe or more regarding relationship between the federal government and the indian tribes or the distribution of power or responsibility in the federal government and the indian tribes another excerpt nothing in this policy weighs the government's deliberative process privilege for example in the iss where i just it's specifically requested by members of congress to respond to or report on proposed legislation to development of such responses in the related policy is a part of the executive branch's delivery process privilege and should remain confidential in addition in specific specified missis's where congress requires the i choose to work with tribes on the development of recommendations that may require nineteen consultation policy has been revised on several occasions and we regularly update to as guided by the following statement from the same policy this circular considers a wide range of needs and unique characteristics in crafting these guidelines therefore it is important for the consultation policy to remain dynamic and be responsive to changing circumstances that affect the indian tribes the i just will seek to integrate its efforts with those of other federal departments agencies such introduce part middle coordination will benefit the federal departments and agencies as well as the indian tribes and you know we're going to sation and certainly the last the last revision of the just policy expanded on our current process of consulting on the annual budget process the evolution of travel consultation and in the chest includes establishing the standing committees i listed all those committees but for the record we have the standing committees that  advise us on a variety of issues the tribal leaders diabetes advisory committee the health promotion disease prevention advisory committee direct service advisory committee etc i won't go through all of them but it's in my statement these are all made up of either tribal leaders or their designates the history of forming tribal lead work groups which are predominately tribal people work on a wide range of policy issues such as resource allocation methodologies and organization structure the products of these workshops are then consulted with all five hundred sixty two tribes on the departmental level h h s also holds regional council taishan sessions in addition to the national annual budget and policy consultation session to provide opportunities for indian tribes and h h s officials to discuss various budget and policy issues there are a number of h h s advisory committees throughout the department of health and human services  to name just a few and i know that you'll be discussing a little bit more later today on the panel about the center for medicaid medicare services they have a special technical advisory committee group sinister these control disease patient advisory committee the h h s american alaska native research advisory council and the i h s and and certainly the department has put considerable effort and resources into sharing that consultation and other communication with tribes accomplish to the largest degree packed practical in closing the provisions of the proposed bill clearly are intended to mandate that a high degree of counsel patient with tribes should take place i'm here today state that the i h s and its parent be part of health and human services routinely undertakes a high level of appropriate consultation as such we believe the legislation would impose impose  unnecessary burden and limit the discretion of the secretary and the i just to prioritize health care to america in the last people thank you for this opportunity presented behalf of the indian health service regarding h r five six zero eight i pleased to answer any questions that you may have thank  you thank you gentlemen for your testimony and let me begin with mr case and you testified that quote formal consultation takes place when the department is considering new policies or regulations that would have a sustained show direct effect on the travis quote the question is would you describe in detail the consultation process that occurred in the development of the january third two thousand and eight guidance or taking off reservation land in the trust well mr chairman we had consultation policy when we adopted the underlying rags which  the twenty five c f r one fifty one rules that went through formal rule making process and was adopted the guidance that came out in january three was a further elaboration of one of the provisions of the rolls i don't remember exactly by i think it was twenty five c f r one fifty one point one one or one two somewhere in that and that basically said that part of the rule basically says that  distance grows away from the reservation and the department will give more consideration to the implications of the distance it was unclear in the context of section  twenty four two part determination cases or applications how to apply that specific regulatory provision and in the course of months of discussing it within the department and  n visiting with various indian tribes both of whom already have gaming and those who don't have gaming the department finally settled in on guidance that adopted a provision that you referred to earlier which was the commuting rule that basically said as a department has a policy as guidance we want to have more continuity between the ability for tribal residents to actually work in a casino sponsored by the tribe rather than just approach an income stream from anywhere in the country so the result of the process was one that's been over the long term looking at the comments on indian gaming and consultation with a lot of individuals and tribes that are in the indian gaming to arrive at a conclusion about how we would deal with that aspect of the  rules you testified if you think the legislation is overly broad this committee does not want of course to prevent emergency actions or to disclose confidential information what we want of course is to ensure that consultation occurs so i'd like for you to explain how you think the bill should be amended to allow the department to act in emergency situations and to prevent the disclosure of confidential information well mr chairman my reading of the bill and i think in consultation with the various parties that with an interior this bill would basically create impasse in the decision making process because it's laden with a very formal time consuming approach to deal with bills as we do consultation and i personally have been involved in many instances which i would call consultation we basically approach consultation from a standpoint of what's involved how material is it how broad of an impact does it have how many tribes are affected by it how quickly we have to provide answers or make decisions and all of those factors and others will dictate how you approach consultation we currently do a lot of consultation with an apartment and on an emergency situation as you mentioned often you have very little time to deal with that and in an emergency situation you have to make a decision about to whom i have to talk how do i get it done quickly and the formal structure in this bill doesn't provide for that i'd like to echo a comment made by chairman hogan as well it's been my experience in having consultation sessions that there is a profound difference in how we view consultation versus some in indian country which is consultation to me is basically where we solicit the views of those people were interacting with that would be affected by our roles and that we take those views into consideration along with all of our statutory regulatory requirements and statutory requirements but it does not mean that we have consensus on or agreement on everything before we move forward spent a year working with indian country tribal groups to representatives from every region we met every month for two or three days for almost an entire year and at the end of that process when we didn't agree on all terms we were given no credit for consulting at all because we hadn't agreed on everything so it doesn't mean agreement on everything means soliciting views so you're fully informed understand it doesn't mean it grima a consultation does not mean agreement on everything but consultation should also be meaningful and it should make those crabs with whom you consult feel like their input has been heard well mr chairman i would agree with you it needs to be meaningful and i think we do enter into meaningful discussions but there are some limitations on that again is  hogan mentioned and let me give an example i personally have sat with the tribal budget committee through many meetings i probably did eight or ten of those on a quarterly basis and in the end the tribal budget committee was very frustrated with the consultation that we would do over the course of a day or a day and a half each quarter to talk about our budget structure and  feeling that they had was this isn't real consultation because we really don't affect the budget in a material way because congress ultimately sets the budget the administration asked for a particular budget and there is a pervasive sense of greater need in country than our budgets really support so we do in the pavin consultation but there are limited that are based in statute or regulation or their budget structure that doesn't allow us to meet all the way to where they want to be and that's just the reality of the system we have a let me ask chairman hogan commission believe that executive order one three one seven five applies to it and if not could you please explain your commission's consultation process of order contains an exemption for independent regulatory agencies and i believe at the time it was committee there's never been a legal interpretation that is a court decision as to whether it does or doesn't apply but there is that exemption for regulatory agencies that i think is appropriate but we have adopted a consultation policy and so i think it's kind of a moot question and the executive order of course doesn't give standing or any federal agency can't be sued for violating that in terms  of impact of the effect of the action that we might have taken but rather it's advisory it gives guidance that's what our policy does the tribes have indicated that the commission met with travel advisory groups and tribes on regulations that were proposed and rejected in two thousand and six the commission consider the meetings with tribes and travel advice groups on prior proposed regulations that were rejected as consultation on the proposed regulations published in november of zero seven i think what i understand you're asking about is the regulations that we've long been considering and have gone forward with  now as the composition of the commission changes over the years i expect some of that last and it shouldn't take agencies literally years to adopt regulations if that can be avoided but this ongoing longstanding effort we've been making to try and draw a brighter line between what equipment can use to conduct go in on compact and gaining activities from that that requires a compact that is casino slot machines of any kind of electronic facsimiles of games of chance we're still doing that but we take into consideration as we look at what we have before us what our tribal advisory committee that we assembled a number of years ago said to us about that what the tribe said to us on the record when we had those seventy or so on the record consultations and try to keep those expressed points of view in mind we've  commission consults with indian tribes in conjunction with regional and national travel organization meetings indian crabs content at these meetings are extremely short perhaps only ten minutes long and often several issues are discussed how long is the average one on one consultation meeting with an indian tribe i think forty five minutes sometimes they stand two and an hour  issues being discussed absolutely that is we typically what we will do is send a letter and say these are the things that are on the front burner and then as we open the meeting we try to review those because we get a variety of people coming to the consultation meetings sometimes it will be the tribal chair and the tribal council and that's absolutely the best quality consultation that we can have but often we get somebody who just  of the tribal gaming commission that's sitting there with the full national indian gaming commission and four or five members of our staff and we block out the same amount of time for each of those meetings and sometimes the attendees are very conversant with the issues and we don't do much of the talking we try to do most of the listening in other instances it's educational in that we share kind of educate so to speak the tribe with respect to what we're doing don't want to talk about any of those things we open this new facility we've got these problems with our environmental impact statement can we talk about that and we do that so in a one size doesn't fit all and there's great diversity there you know  chairman so if a trap sends a travel gaming operations staff or travel gaming commission staff to discuss technical technical meeting issues at the meeting  has the commission then ever raised issues that require travel consultation with the elected leaders that is after you've gone through those who you say may be lesser in rank to the meeting will you then go and discuss issues with the tribal leaders still well we don't always immediately then schedule a follow up meeting so to speak but we do try to convey our greetings and what we've said to the folks that attend take that back to the tribe and to tell us more if they have more to tell us and often you know we will meet more than once a year on similar issues with with the tri sometimes with those technical people later with the tribal council sometimes vice versa but there isn't a an absolute pattern where after we meet with the technicians so to speak we get together with the political leadership let me turn to make mr explain didn't mean to ignore you expressed concerns about the costs necessary to implement the bill how much has the service spent the last four years on implementing an executive order one three one seven five and then i have a second question how much do you how house specific the where do you draw the line in terms of every contact we have because we we literally meet with patients daily we meet with tribal leaders just weekly so where do we draw the line in terms of what constitutes consultation we have had that discussion internal to the department health and human services and in fact in even within the i gess as to what constitutes that interaction with the trial is a just a simply because the consultation where we sit down and we talk about some issues they have specific to their to their tribe is the cover in terms of accountable consultation we think not but there needs to be a line drawn as to how we define what the scope of the actual consultation is and when we know that then we can calculate what the costs are but right now if we just simply take it a bit at the outside every contact certainly every contact will be formalized as opposed to what we do now we have we have national meetings i meet with tribal leaders at national meetings does that what what at what point do you draw the line in terms of what constitutes quote formalized accountable council consultation and when we know that then we can calculate man we welcome you to the committee on natural resources we do have your prepared testimony to will be made part of the record as it actually read and you may proceed if you wish present surely question during the chairman rail your legislation would be a welcome change to what has become the standard washington refrain if passed h r five six zero eight would for the first time mandate that each agency develop a policy to engage in meaningful and accountable consultation more importantly this not just nation would create an oversight process to ensure that the federal agencies comply with this consultation policy the legislation would recognize the relationship between the federal government and native nations as one of government to government that we as trouble government say the right to solvency and the right to self determination it would recognize that there exists a trust relationship recognized in treaties statutes and executor orders that the federal government needs to act in our best interest that the native nations need to have a say in the decisions that are made on our behalf it appears to be such a simple proposition engage those who will be affected by policy decisions in the decision making process mr chairman i commend you for introducing this legislation and i support it passage the relationship of native nations to the federal government is supposed to be one between sovereigns with each government sitting down with its representatives to engage in discussions as equals the concept of the government to government relationship should mean that the federal government includes trouble governments in the decision making process that we are heard and listened to and that our opinions and concerns have meaning this concept should embrace a belief that native americans in trouble governments probably understand better than someone sitting in an office a thousand or more miles away what our needs are where our money can best be spent and what policies would be the most effective of course participation through a tribal consultation policy does not necessarily equate to meaningful consultation at present there is little meaningful consultation with public government decision to terminate routinely in washington that affect the daily lives of native americans we are left to adapt to the vacillating policy choices made by washington bureaucrats regardless of our individual needs our priorities unfortunately for most troubling governments that seem to these changes usually means that we make do with less as our needs continue to grow the worst of all situations is when trouble delegations are conven several times this year tribal leaders gather around the country to discuss our budgetary needs and priorities would be a officials this process culminates each year with a meeting in a washington area conference facility where tribal leaders come and ask the for help to protect our resources our culture our existence when tribal leaders pour out their hearts talking about the needs of their people a bureaucrat listen impassively all the while these officials know that the budgetary decisions have already been made and that consultation is nothing more than a pretense to be able to say that they have listened to and took notes but other priorities governs the process even our people  our culture or threat it is evident other priorities control the process not the names that tell the governments put forward in my mind consultation is more than sitting there and listening consultation is acting on the information also in april two thousand and four president bush issued executive order thirteen three three six placed within the context of education order recognizes the unique composed of the heads of various federal agencies to develop a plan to implement the order yet even with this commitment to the educational needs of our children the president's budgets routinely is not enough for school construction and education programs for native american students for decades american presidents have paid lip service to the idea of trouble sovereignty and self determination definitely chairman hall more needs to get done to involve native american nations in the decision making process of the federal government and that includes the budgetary processes thank you a bill to establish meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of seller policies by the partner of interior indian health services and the national indian gaming commission as chairman of the poets man the creek indians and chair of the t l d c and i have personal knowledge of how important it is for federal agents is to consult with tribes in the development of policies that will impact travel communities for over two hundred years united states has interacted with the indian tribes and the government to government relationship meaningful consultation between tribal governments and united states it's an ancient call component of this relationship  through consultation with engine tribes and successful successfully implemented several miles impacting tribal communities tiles one in five of the indian self determination and education's assistance i needed healthcare improvement in the special diabetes program for indians it is because of tribal consultation that these programs operate successfully both for the benefit of the federal government and then to into tribal communities  chairman of the t l d c i've had the unique opportunity to work closely with dr kelly acton director the division of di the just treatment and prevention program to oversee the development of many of the culturally sensitive mild diabetes programs have developed and implemented a variety of community and education programs that reflect the specific needs of their local communities the s t p i has made a difference the main blood sugar level a one c in indian community secretes from nine percent in one thousand nine hundred six to seven point eight five percent in two thousand and seven after the s t p i this is a major achievement because scientific research shows that a one percent decrease translates to a forty percent reduction in diabetes related complications such as blindness kidney failure and amputations on december the twenty ninth two thousand allocation of funds for this one year funding we're just getting the results back from their a consultation meeting in the t l d c is in the process of making final recommendations to the us as to the distribution d through the extension extensive and meaningful consultation process consultation took place at the local tribal level and through close collaboration between the t l d c and division of  diabetes appreciate h r fifty six has been introduced to strengthen the federal government's responsibility to consult with tribal governments have or with all due respect i'm concerned that the legislation this c requirements as to dio i g c does not abrogate the responsibility of other federal agents is to consult with tribal governments i appreciate the opportunity to comment on this bill thank you consultation and coordination with indian tribal governments act since before the formation of the united states leaders from the united tribes have actively engaged in consultation of our affairs with leaders from other governments tribal and non tribal in one instance our tribal leaders engaged in consultation with george washington during the revolutionary war the outcome of that call so taishan was not very favorable to us and this still yet pending in litigation in the court system since those early times we feel the united states has had kind of a rocky relationship with travel made now more recently presidents have begun the issuing of executive orders the executive order that is currently in effect today as an example of that  directing that tribal governments because often with on matters that are being considered that have an impact on them and we believe that that in light of that in light of some of the progress that has been made that it is proper and it is fitting that congress move forward to institutionalize this process what we think that there are many agencies federal agencies also particularly that do recognize the primacy of tribal governments and they interact with indian nations accordingly the measure of effectiveness and the end result of often has some high and low results or maybe i better should say perhaps moderate to low results of effectiveness have addressed some of those specific examples in my written testimony and i need to be frank in some of the more recent sessions that i've participated in with the national indian gaming commission too often i have felt that i was there basing a foregone conclusion was expressing concerns but i didn't feel as though their concerns were being taken as they should have been no i don't want to say that suggesting that chairman hogan and other commissioners or other staff did not give due diligence to do not give time and work to those sessions they did and leslie but i think the outcome is what's of concern i don't necessarily fault that commission for that outcome because i think it's a process matter i know that that we experience today and involve ourselves in is up and down the scale under depends on who the person is they're consulting gives you a relevant end result of the value our effectiveness of that consultation session but those negative attributes are no those negative things are not what i wanted to dwell on here this morning i really want to focus more on what we think consultation should be first of all tribal governments and matters a fact tribes are very wide ranging and very unique most often to the point where one policy or one rule or one lot more fit every occasion in every instance where the minimum we thin should begin with the notice of an issue the notice of an issue now we come to the table often with a drafted plan and we're staged at the table promised from the beginning as adversaries where we should be looking at the problem in the issue from the same side of the table and i think effective consultation would drive us there there needs to be meetings following that notice of the issue to consolidate and gather those impacts from all the tribes affected those things need to be followed up with discussion written follow up in meeting  the follow up from gathering the information i believe needs to then be brought forward to the tribal leaders and is done currently is done in conjunction often with an ice  you set with the mast association where consultation sessions get scheduled concurrently with those so even though it be long and it would be kind of cumbersome to do the end result is a raised level and raised a value and raised effectiveness of good faith and even though that process perhaps seems long and protracted and which i accept that it is it is far more better than to have a lengthy and costly litigation we believe this bill an important step forward in moving us in that direction it's an important step forward in building sound government to government relationships relationships that are going that are ongoing on a recurring basis checking the time and relationships so that when an issue does come up we have a process to turn to that's a well lubricated working process and it's not something we're discovering as we are in route to it a process that produces a consistent measure and a consistent level of risk and result for example in wisconsin governor doyle in wisconsin five or six years ago introduced a similar executive order mandate his secretaries they have to consult with tribes matters that affect them we do that on a recurring basis every year every secretary now the first couple of years a little shifty but eventually these sessions are proving workable they're proving we're put the same amount of time into the work the end result is better elected leaders come and go elected leaders come and go so without some consistent framework for a  mean health care bill and i g c regulations i h s issues and those are all very very important matters but in my estimation nothing absolutely nothing is more important than this process and this bill being suggested in this consultation process so i applaud chairman ray hall your initiative to bring this bill forward and congressman kildee as  well we have some concerns as have been mentioned already i won't repeat them we have concerns about some of the litigation the some of the things in the bill but we are willing to work with it we're willing to put whatever work and effort is necessary you for your testimony this morning the chair would like to note with pleasure that all three of the previous witnesses have remained to hear your testimony and i wish to commend them for that let me needed to better define the process all right other witnesses have indicated a desire to see this expanded to other federal agencies would you agree with that agree with that i think it should be across the board i mean the u s government is a humongous government but it's it's it's an entity that we deal with  is complying with this point in working with tribes in consultation process and as my testimony indicated but certainly it is there's always room for be included in this bill let me ask you if would you still support this legislation if it is not extended to all federal agencies that's a good question certainly i would hope not but i  other agencies yes sir could you mention a concern about not including other federal agencies that congress is sending a message that the other do not need to comply with executive order  so if we do not extend it to other federal agencies how would you propose to amend the bill well certainly we need to make sure that this is codified to the fact that all of the agencies are required to minutes let me ask chairman dan fourth in your written testimony you specify the steps that you believe should be performed in a regulation if a regulation or policy is needed do you think that these steps should be incorporated into the bill are the fastest currently used in any consultation process is employed by the administration under executive order one three one seven five some of those steps are incorporated but i believe generally the steps are spelled out more in the department's consultation policy but i think that to standardize consultation across all of indian country and standardize consultation across the full wrath of the agencies that we interact with these steps and perhaps other should be incorporated into the bill so that there is a consistency that you indicate a concern that the proposed bill could lead to increased litigation where tribe does not find it an agency has addressed the tribes governmental concerns what provision in the bill do you believe will result in increased litigation and how would you address this issue i can't recall but the specific section instantly and i would like some more time to provide you some written follow up to that but i do know that the bill contains some components of it that could would could be  perceived for a tribe or an entity to move too quickly to try to litigate an issue before even the consultation was completed so what my recommendations would be specifically i would ask for more time to provide that to you yes we would like to receive that to understand director given or will have a chance to respond in the next panel but i have special welcome to chairman danforth of the united nations in wisconsin and wish him all the best in his retirement i know that's coming up very fast but he's worked tirelessly on behalf of the members of the united nation really appreciate his assistance i guess chairman to answer let me ask you and of course this is relevant to all the witnesses as well but getting to the basic need for this legislation you would think it's intuitive  that the federal agencies would be known not only notifying but consulting with various groups and entities in our country where their decisions are going to impact them and yet we have been getting a variety of reports that that hasn't always been the case or merely it was notice that served as consultation and not really a back and forth conversation and i guess my question for you is is this a matter of a process that's breaking down or is it personalities that haven't found the value in sitting down and consulting with the various nations in the country before decisions are made and if it is personality how does the legislation get to that then other than setting up a new kind of requirement or mandate trying to force these conversations chairman dan for the any thoughts on that yes thank you congressman good to see you again and thank you for being here the occurs it does lend itself to personalities and i'm not going to suggest that that's always the case but i do think that legislation has a tendency to consultation does that mean unanimous agreement at the end of the process but at a minimum consultation should mean that if it's something that i am not in agreement with i should at least understand the reasons why and vice versa for the other parties at question well i was just trying to get whether or not this is necessary in regards to the process that's already in place now but i think some of you've already testified that makes a lot more sense to have these conversations take place in the upfront in order to allay any misperceptions or misunderstandings that might might be made and therefore at the back end we might be able to avoid some of the litigation expenses that might inevitably arise out of a lack of a consultation process do you think with this legislation that's pending that that might go  that would help substantially in trying to reduce potential litigation in the future i think it would absolutely and it is worth time if we look at some examples of consultation has occurred some extent in the beginning differences during the process and up a lot again if we couple all the time and expense and work i think that we would find out by doing being more deliberate and exact with the consultation up front the whole process is short and less costly and more standard and finally let me just ask each of you this is one thing passing legislation requiring consultation to take place it's another thing getting good faith negotiations or good faith  consultations to take place is that something that can be dealt with effectively in the legislation or do any of you have any thoughts on how we can foster better working relationship in good faith conversations that take place in the future i can start with that i would say that i think there needs to be clarification of what the expectations are up front and i think defining the expectations a clarifying that would go yeah president surely you know anything i don't know if you can do that in the legislation but i think it would help to define what we mean by meaningful because certainly we have conversations but it seems oftentimes it doesn't go anywhere this where the concern is and if we're going to be talking if tribes are going to think the point of far as what the expectation should be is a very valid one is i'm sure that the directors can soon testify will be stating that while they believe in their own mind that there has been effective consultation but sometimes at the end of the day the answer is no and sometimes  people view that as lack of consultation or lack of a good faith effort and so i think some of those things just can't get resolved through legislation thank you all again thank you mr chairman thank is being treated government to government and as equals in that discussion and that's not occurring and the example is a very current example that affects the president surely the nation has to do with the u exploration and potential mining around the grand canyon the lands where their ancestral or whether bordering the nation that would have been a requirement i think for  meaningful consultation advice that did not occur and you know inviting the tribe to an open to a public meeting where they were to show maps and graphs is not meaningful consultation i don't care how you define it and so mr rale just a comment and very appreciative of the legislation i think it will go a long ways to returning that government to government status that we all seek thank you  gentlemen again we thank you for being with us today in your very insightful testimony our next witness is mr jerry get near the director of the bureau of indian affairs who will be testifying on all the bills under consideration today h r fifty six eighty h r thirty five twenty two h r thirty four ninety and ash twenty four fifty seven welcome you to the committee we have your prepared testimony affairs for the department of interior and i am going to provide the department's testimony on a series of bills today and with your permission i'll just run through those in order the first is dispute between the tribe and the county the department supports this legislation this land can only come out of trust through congressional action and congressional action to remove the land from trust and realign a portion of the tribes reservation resolving a jurisdictional dispute over a road both accounting the tribes have perform their duties under a settlement agreement and th ready for congressional action we don't believe that removing land from trusts is always an appropriate solution to problems but in this case given the negotiated settlement and a proactive dispute resolution between the tribe and the county we believe that it is appropriate the next bill h r thirty four ninety to law mini me walk the land transfer act of two thousand and seven and this would transfer to the tribal lands currently administered by the bureau of land management to be held in trust by the united states for the tribe we support this bill with one slight amendment there is a one hundred eighty day timeline to complete the survey of three tracks to determine if they are ready for transfer we don't believe this time period is sufficient to allow completion of the survey field work and i understand that the tribe is will be having meetings and is going to propose a solution to that but we suggest the language be changed to a soon as practicable or if a date is necessary to ninety days following completion other allow the tribe to lease restricted feed land for a period of time or with extensions for a period of time exceeding that currently set forth by statute there's precedent for this other tribes have received extensions this bill would provide an extension for seventy five years and we support this legislation r fifty six eighty is a bill to man certain laws and has ten sections which i'll go through in order section to provide for an annual disbursement of the colorado river indian tribes provides the secretary discretion to make an annual disbursement to the colorado indian tribes from revenues deposited into the treasury department from power operations the department of interior opposes this section we believe it would divert funds intended for the colorado river agency these funds are also not held in trust and are necessary to maintain and operate the power eighty section three fifty six eighty inserts a new language and a twenty five u s c four fifteen after regarding the healer river indian community and we do not have any objection to that section section three section four and five allow the sioux st marie tribe cheerful and dns which with full disclosure i am a land is not held in trust we believe they already have that authority as does any person or entity who owns the land as in the united states sections four and five would provide import clarification of that we have one concern about subsection d of section four which makes the effective date of the section january one two thousand and five and we're not sure why there is that effective date but we support those sections with that one concern section six of h r fifty six eighty would allow the morongo band of mission indians to enter into nine agricultural leases for the tribes district feel land with lease terms of not more than fifty years as with the prior sections there is precedent for this and we support that section section seven involves the cow creek and i'm quite indians and as similar to the other sections it would allow them to enter into leases ever started feeling and for terms up to ninety nine years subject to the secretary's approval for the reasons above we support that we would point out there is a typographical error in the name of the tribe in the bill section eight fifty six eighty we have concerns six just to be honest we're not sure exactly the effect of that or what that means that we would see the committee's clarification of that section nine of h r fifty six eighty lifts the restriction requiring funds to be invested in and low earning federally backed instruments regarding the columbia river treaty fishing access sites and it would allow that instead of requiring the funds to be invested in federally backed securit or allow the use of the prudent investment standard we have concerns about this and would like to have further discussions our concerns in the past we've opposed to use the prudent investment  project so we would support the use of the same standard the existing standard which is that the funds must be invested in federally backed securities section ten of h r fifty six eighty provides the secretary shall take lands into trust for the benefit of the makers who tribes of florida and include those lands as part of the tribes reservation and we recognize congress authority to legislative act on taking land into trusts or however we prefer it misstated process in section one fifty one of our regulations  that's a process we prefer that we usually use that concludes my testimony i'd be glad to take any questions you may have thank you very much appreciate your views on all the pending because i'm going to turn my before i do that i want to recognize mr kildee co sponsor with me on fifty six zero eight and he's already been thanking which times this morning so i'll recognize him for any comments he wishes to make i thank you very very much i was department in general that consultation with the sovereign tribes means real consultation not telling them what one side has decided to do and i think we made a very very clear and also with the national the new gaming commission that that consultation really means consultation and we have to and this committee is probably the best guardian of that sovereignty and mr chairman i appreciate your constant  guardianship in an area thank you very much in the chairman certainly welcomes and thank you for your leadership on native american issues over decades in this body  which we have out of your use such time or you may want thank you chairman appreciate that mr director just a couple of questions for clarification and yours and your testimony you state the section i think thirty three eighty five c identifies certain general purposes for which power revenues may be expended none of these involve just some person to a tribe the question i have is does congress have the authority to authorize the funds be used for the purposes provided in this legislation but the congressional authority issue as well i believe you do then the question that i i court the question is the issue before the court the type and amount of funds or the manner in which the b a is expanding those forms i don't know the answer to that congressman i have to find out but i think that's an important distinction i think the committee would appreciate that  information let me let me talk a little bit about the precedent and and your comments i think in this legislation particularly section two there there has there already is a fact precedent on what the seeks to do with the legislation under section two and there seems to be some inconsistency and how be a approaches the use of funds from other similar projects and example in response to a very critical need for irrigation well that water and another indian irrigation project in arizona congress are authorized to be a to use funds derived from power trust funds to purchase irrigation water that was with the son carlos irrigation project there was also legislation that conveyed to be a b s irrigation project to the salt river merit americal by indian community that included a provision allowing the community to collect and disperse the fees investment proceeds for use in connection with projects where the funds were collected in particular to the one thousand nine hundred four act provides for the use of those interest for operation and maintenance expenses to use the interest for that purpose and and so the position today on the issue was also i believe inconsistent with the with the department's brief of february twentieth and in the suit which the quit brought against a on the use of the funds for this project in the government's response and their brief on page eight it stated consequently congress can use this funds for any purpose now it's kind of sounds like the government is taking the position that the funds can only be used more restrictively any explanation and that in consistency i would say under the current under current framework we would need to use a more restrictive but as a response your previous question i think congress has the right and authority to dictate different ways through legislation we oppose that legislation we don't disagree with your eye but i need to pass it and so congress has the authority to authorize the use of these funds for other purposes and since the department does not support this particular legislation do you have any suggestions for the tribe as to how they may obtain funded to establish that office of energy or or or with other federal funds to establish that office or your position on that question i think we would have to discuss that with the the tribe and get more facts and we can respond to that in writing i don't know today sir saw there is a it's my understanding is just opposition to the tribe having an office of energy correct my wrong i wouldn't say that and again i will have to get more facts ok well hopefully it's a consequence to getting more facts we can do it it's just asleep because i think the questions that are being asked are important and mr chairman it goes to think with our colleague keelty has mentioned did many many times that i've heard him say that this congress the congress does have the authority to make decisions and and i think the section two is a well thought out and important contribution to the tribe and i would suggest as we get those answers to some of the questions back and i will also submit some additional in writing and with that appreciate i just want to thank you for something that has been frustration for years and years and years and if we get some statutory improvement i'm very appreciative of what's going on here thank you gentleman from maryland  ok we thank you thank you again for your testimony and we look forward to receiving the information that mr we're always requested in writing from you mr thank you and gentlemen we welcome you to our committee on natural resources we have your prepared testimony will be made part of the record if as if you actually read and you are encouraged to testify and you may proceed in that order i introduce her and probably to ship on many issues and i'm proud to extend this welcome to her and to her nation and look forward to her testimony thank you ok the colorado river indian tribes are courage appreciates the opportunity to testify in favor of section two of h r fifty six eighty gall the bill to a man and certain laws relating to native americans and i ask that my written testimony be made part of the record create would also like to thank congressman grijalva for his sponsorship of h r fifty six eighty and for his support for its efforts to achieve greater energy independence and acting section two of this bill provides essential support for making the federal policy of tribal energy self determination a reality and creates reservation we like to propose some amendments to this provision to boy avoid unnecessary delays an many the new law before addressing these amendments may be helpful to summarize scripts proposal and to provide some background information federal law strongly encourages indian tribes to develop their respective energy resources the energy policy act of two thousand and five or two thousand and five energy act provides a regulatory and policy framework for tribal energy self determination to date however congress has not appropriated the necessary resources for indian tribes to realize new laws intended benefits for example tied to five of two thousand and five energy act authorizes tribe to create tribal energy resources agreements or terra but developing and obtaining federal approval for a  cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in addition the two thousand and five energy act requires an indian tribe to demonstrate the institutional capacity to implement a terrible for the secretary can approve the terror krit has identified an appropriate for funding source just abolition of capacity create needs to implement the two thousand and five energy act under federal law the revenue derived from operating the ice power system is held in a special account under twenty five u s c section three eighty five  crit critiques legislation providing that the secretary of interior may disperse some of these proceeds directly to crit for the purpose of developing crits institutional managerial and technical capacity and vision by the two thousand and five energy act th department raises three objections to the provision of section two of h r fifty six eighty first the department asserts that such a diversion would be inappropriate because the funds are not held in trust by the united states and are not and are necessary to maintain and operate the on the colorado river indian reservation h r fifty six eighty therefore does not take funds necessary from the operation and maintenance of the power system away from the b i power utility second the department asserts in addition the funds are the subject of pending litigation recently initiated initiated by crit in federal district court does not agree chris initiated action and federal district court to challenge the purposes for which the b i v was expanding funds from the power account the funds are not themselves the subject of pending litigation initiated by chris instead is attempting to assure that the i a e a expenditures of these funds are both proper and lawful under twenty five u three eight five c third the department asserts further section three eighty five c identify certain general purposes for which power revenues may be expended none of which involve the disbursement to a tribe career does not agree while the code does identify purposes for which the power revenues may be expended as apartment stated in its brief in federal district court congress may authorize the use of these funds for other purposes at least in instances where the rebel relevant tribal beneficiary grants its consent in response to a critical need for geisha in water on an indian irrigation project in arizona congress authorized to use of funds held in power account to purchase irrigation water included a provision allowing the community to collect and disburse the fees collected pursuant to the ford nine hundred forty six act similarly in this case created asking congress to authorize the expenditure of a small portion of the excess revenues made up primarily of interest from the power account to enable create to develop a troubled department of energy to oversee the power system create has significant but unrealized potential for energy development create has a sizable amount of developed land in both arizona and california perhaps most important our reservation is strategically located at a crossroads of several major interstate transit interstate energy transmission corridors for both electricity and natural gas and in a high solar radiation belt these major resources invite chris electric energy developments including renewable solar and other forms of renewable electricity generation as well as more conventional conventional thermal plant storage and installations opportunities also exist for alternate fuels namely bio fuel and compressed natural gas production the only thing missing is the funding that create needs to develop a terror and to establish the administrative and regulatory structure that congress in vision when it passed the two thousand and five energy act and acting to section two of h r fifty six eighty is an essential step in making the shared federal tribal vision of an energy future a reality once again we would like to thank chairman recall for holding this hearing and congressman hall for his leadership in introducing most legislation thank  hundred fifty of those members reside on the reservation and that's the importance of this bill is more housing for our tribe members to bring home i think  if i were to invite you to out to our reservation to see our situation you would understand the need for more housing on our reservation right now we have probably sixty four homes on the reservation and it's just not adequate enough we have people standing in line trying to trying to move back home my family included i think this piece of legislation is pretty straightforward it basically transfers  land into the i a e a which would in turn hold in trust for our tribe to do the things we need to do i'll talk a little bit about the three parcels that mean a lot of the tribe maintain those properties when b l m has basic control over that we would like to have that opportunity to maintain that properly so we can have our people rest there the second piece is  fifteen acres we need there's a need for emergency services buildings on our reservation we're now we don't have any room or proposed but we've proposed there is our strap security and our fire department will be housed there along with other tribal infrastructures the biggest thing is biggest concern is a place to put out our cultural center and then our third piece is about fifty acres me fifty acres where we proposed to do more housing for the tribe we have three hundred fifty acres in trust now which is in a lot but most of it's not buildable just based on the terrain in our area it's  just a huge need for us to get this done and like so before i appreciate you guys hearing us here and i appreciate mr ron radanovich for introducing this bill he's been to our area and he understands a need there you know when i want to make one thing clear is that this is this is absolutely no gaming task this at all we have a small casino on our reservation and it provides this sufficient amount of revenue to run our programs we have there we made we have a co with state and we will honor that compact to the utmost there's any other information you need i'm trying to make this short because i don't like to do this very much but significance of our technical amendment fish especially salmon is important to our charts an eight hundred fifty five or treaties committed to us to assure our right to take fish and purity across our ancestral homeland indian affairs today twenty three twenty nine sites are scattered along roughly a hundred thirty river miles their fine and development with boat launches and docks fish cleaning stations sheds for curing fishing camping facilities in extra income to support all in them were fifty years to twenty forty five b i also agreed to contribute two hundred fifty thousand per year for the first eight years of the m o u unfortunately to be i didn't them responsibility for the site however the self determination that restricts investment to federally backed instruments with typically low yields and to do the sixty six percent this restriction on top of the be a lack of contribution  principal is restricted to sub sub so we can interest earnings are not in the thirty months ending last december the restricted principle yield to four point five however our investment of the unrestricted interest account earned over thirteen percent pick to work closely with the repeatable fund manager on prudent investment and standards for both the principal and interest account on average we spend about four hundred fifty thousand per year for or name use and current estimates  investment restrictions remain unchanged an additional four point six million in principle is required to receive all of them to twenty two twenty forty five however if we lift the restrictions to afford returns closer to eight percent we estimate two point three million of new principal is needed an amount that would even satisfy be a commitment in durham or you last year we asked the interior department to find a solution to the restriction imposed upon self determined determination that they were six eighty exclusively for the club you are fishing sites rest assured that we are sophisticated and capable of making prudent investments section nine of age or fifty six eighty can extend to current on and on by eight to nine years it began to o u this amendment protects the federal investment the status with the construction of the two deficient sites it's also crucial to the tribal commercial ceremonial and subsistence fisheries and it honors overdue commitments when the dams were built in the treat we would have hoped the administrative process could have been successful during that shooting long period unfortunately it has not just for your information these lands are well within the traditional ancestral land areas of the tribe  department so we've been forced to seek a legislative remedy the tribe to tribe does not intend to use these lands for any gaming and we do not intend to change each of these have just a couple of brief questions one i wanted to to to reiterate that there this this land exchange and increase land into the reservation comes with the cardiod that there is no gambling on those lands of state that again for me that is correct even if we wanted to which we don't we the market in our area is pretty much absorbed now we don't want to extend anything infrastructure and you there was an issue of a survey i think that was you want to turn to what we would like just before we amend that this bill to include or to exclude the hundred eighty days we morning the panel that we have before us right now in the other panels that have testified today illustrates that over the last thirty two years that you and i have congress we came here together that the tribes have become more assertive of their sovereignty and that i encourage that you become more aware of the sovereignty become more so vereignty and congress has become more aware of their obligation to recognize and defend that sovereignty and hearings like this illustrate that in the constitution you know they when they refer to your sovereignty they put it in the article article one which is the legislative body where the prime  a responsibility we assign certain tasks to the interdepartmental but we read here in article one the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes there and in one sentence they talk about the three types of sovereignty and every time you testified in this panel right here today point seven acres but its sovereignty is high and that category of foreign nations as is russia which is six point  six million square miles so size is not your term in your sovereignty the constitution doesn't grant you your sovereignty the constitution recognizes it because john marshall that's famous decision says you have retained sovereignty we didn't give it to you it was retained it was here before the first european settlers came here but i think  the hearing you had today which i really appreciate it really illustrates that we here in the congress our obligation is to respect protect and defend that sovereignty and i thank you for the hearings for chairman  have so long been ignored in fact i'm holding a water hearing on indian water right coming up soon because i really feel it's very very apropos very important and as my colleague was indicating you need  to recognize you have rights in this house and in this congress and you need to be more assertive in being able to state that you are fighting for those rights and the recognition for them one of the questions they would have is the tribe how would you like to respond to that and then if if you obtain that funding from the department would the tribe assume some of the b a s colorado river agency responsibility and as well prepared as a tribe to assume those excess amount what is already acquired off the generation and the funds that we have will go to the repairs but also to include  congressional oversight when there were repairs that started in two thousand and three the bureau did not alert the tribes and we were not involved in fact we saw  a crane there and that's what alerted us to one of our dams so have you asked them why they are not allowing you to be part of or what vice you knew what they're doing in those areas if i can't confirm my council you can answer that more directly or  and he is telling me yes we did ask and and fact that and that's where we went with the lawsuit and that's how that occurred because in the testimony that i gave we're not so much looking out at the furnace because the excess revenue that we draw off of that is what we want you know oversight of for but it's the process we're not after the fines it's the process and eventually we want to go into our own u course we plan to continue to use it as such all of it yes we can find no change in land use not for sale not for casinos absolutely no game and we don't believe the law would permit it anyway we have no intention for pacino's or gaming thank you thank you mr chair that those are the questions that i did have and again thank you for coming in testifying before this accept committee and thank you for holding the second hearing thank you let me continue with and many tribes have outstanding land in the trust applications why is this situation unique mr chairman we believe that the i guess i would come back and i understand we have have multiple land into trust applications the purpose i guess i would say that are reasonable to ration of the of the pending application would be the best answer i could give you we've been trying we've been working trying to work with the department for well over five years and we've been awarded we see no progress at all so you had just been in for five years yes over five years could you provide the committee with a map of the lands that are subject to this bill yesterday and also a summary of any environmental studies that have been done on these lands yes or ok we appreciate receiving  ask you in your testimony you state that you met with the interior department in two thousand and seven to discuss solutions to the investment restrictions were any solutions developed this meeting nine zero i'm sorry i didn't hear you i'm sorry no and that's basically why i'm here today and there was no solution to your knowledge what is it department done to contribute to a solution nothing alright and aside from this tech government do you know of any alternative solutions to solve the problem well yeah we can invest the way we want to that you know would bring some of that earnings up and we can get some of that money to last as long as we want to as a test apply to and one of the things i'd like to make the commandant about to be a is is concerned that they have may have to pay twice well the problem the problem here is that they haven't offered their share of funds to him or you and also they took the corpse of engineers funds and spent down principle without without investing the money as intended and you know when they didn't do that we took it off and did that for them and then you know and now we want i go to a higher investment type and they say and we can't because they're afraid we'll lose the money well in the past i've witnessed the i lose a tremendous amount of money for tribes and we're well aware that we can handle this situation in the manner that we've handled it when we took it over so with that mr chairman i would leave it at that ok appreciate it mr chairman dave i may ask you about the provision in the legislation that provides non b l m land will be subject to the same laws as other lands currently held in trust could you explain why this provision is needed and why the lands would not automatically be subject to the same laws if they are placed in a trust intent of drafting the bill was to follow something that had been acceptable and used as a precedent by this committee and that was the california land transfer act in fact there will be no change in jurisdiction here in the past for writing bills of this nature in california or the lands reference and section three c being placed in the trust pursuant to this legislation no sir the stated trust process is an appeal at this point at the interior board of indian appeals they we had thought initially about asking the committee to take the lands and a trust but we didn't want to be accused of interfering with the rights of the nanny and people involved in that let a geisha not even though we consider their case to be totally chairman day indicated that most but not all of the land affected by this will become part of the tribes reservation as a tribe and form the individual landowners that their land will become a part of the reservation because of this legislation tribe ok my last question will do you mean non indian for you and to be within the boundaries of the reservation provide the tribe with an advantage in the ongoing litigation on the pending free to trust application no sir we did not believe it is legally arguable right now that the tribe only those lands and having them contiguous to the reservation is already exercising governmental authority over the property so no there will be nothing in fact as you note in there in the legislation itself what's happening here is there's an easement situation and easement preexisted the tribes acquisition of the parcel of what the secretary rendered his decision to take lanson to trust the couple involved did not believe that there is not was adequately described and protected in the secretary of state a trust approval decision this was just actually recognizes that easement in the bill itself so if anything it will help the plaintiffs in that case by giving them a federal recognition of an existing easement in addition to that you'll note on the map here thank you the other members which additional questions