U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–302 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–299

S. 919, THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR TRIBAL

SELF–GOVERNANCE ACT OF 2013

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 29, 2014

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairwoman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RHONDA HARJO, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on January 29, 2014 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 14

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 5

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 3

WITNESSES

Allen, Hon. W. Ron, Chairman/CEO, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe ..................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Isaac, Jerry, President, Tanana Chiefs Conference .............................................. 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Peercy, Mickey, Executive Director of Self-Governance, Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma .............................................................................................................. 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

Trahan, Hon. Ronald, Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes .... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Washburn, Hon. Kevin, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to Ronald 

Trahan ................................................................................................................... 46

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ................. 45

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from New Mexico, prepared statement ............. 45

(1)

S. 919, THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

TRIBAL SELF–GOVERNANCE ACT OF 2013 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,

Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will 

come to order. 

Today we are doing two things. One, having a business session 

on two legislative matters, the re-vote on Vince G. Logan to be Special Trustee, Office of the Special Trustee, and S. 1448 to provide 

for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the 

Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land. That is legislation 

that we have had before in this Committee and passed out of this 

Committee and passed out of the Senate and the House, just never 

passed at the same time. So we wanted to also give that an opportunity to be moved. 

So while we are waiting for members to come, I will go ahead 

and give my opening statement as it relates to both of those issues. 

And then we will see where we are as far as a quorum. 

Today, as I said, the Committee is here to consider two legislative items and then have a legislative hearing on tribal self-governance. We have a real good set of witnesses so I look forward to 

hearing their comments as well. 

But the Committee previously heard from Mr. Logan and the 

Committee reported his nomination to the full Senate before the 

session ended. Mr. Logan’s nomination has since been resubmitted 

for this session of Congress and it requires our Committee to act 

again. Hopefully we can act judiciously today and enact that. 

The Special Trustee is charged with overseeing the Department 

of the Interior’s fulfillment of its trust responsibilities to tribes and 

individual Indians. The Special Trustee also implements any necessary trust reforms at the Department of Interior and ensures 

that they are consistent with the government’s trust responsibility. 

Mr. Logan has shown a great deal of passion for working with 

tribes and individual Indians to manage their trust assets. The 

Committee appreciates his willingness to take on this difficult role. 

2

The second item, as I mentioned, was S. 1448, the Spokane Tribe 

of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation 

Act. A version of this bill has been considered previously by this 

Committee and some more versions have passed out of the Senate 

and the House. So I am hopeful that in this Congress this issue can 

finally be put to rest. 

I originally introduced a version of this bill along with my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, on September 10, 2013, 

and the Committee held a legislative hearing receiving testimony 

from both the Spokane Tribe and the Administration supporting 

this bill. The bill would compensate the Spokane Tribe for past and 

future use of land by the United States for operation of the Grand 

Coulee Dam. And today the tribe has only received $4,700 since the 

government flooded 1,000 acres of Spokane tribal lands to construct 

and operate this dam. This bill will finally provide the tribe with 

the equitable compensation for their use of land. 

I will be offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

today that addresses how the annual payments to the tribes will 

have no effect on current ratepayers. But before we get to that, I 

might ask my colleague, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, if 

he has any opening statements or comments that he would like to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Just briefly. Thank you. Today we are going 

to be considering your bill, the Spokane Equitable Compensation 

Act, I know this is very important to you and to the Spokane Tribe. 

So I appreciate you and your staff continuing to work diligently to 

address the issues of the bill, especially the cost. Thank you for 

that. 

We are also going to consider the nomination of Mr. Logan as 

Special Trustee. This position is important to the Federal Government in carrying out its trust responsibility and Mr. Logan’s strong 

financial background, I believe, is going to serve him well. If confirmed as Special Trustee, his experience will be needed to help improve the Indian Trust Administration. So again, I thank you for 

your leadership on both these important matters. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Great. Thank you for that. I don’t know if any 

of my colleagues have anything else they want to comment on, 

questions for staff? 

Senator BARRASSO. If I could, Madam Chair, just before I relinquish my time, this business meeting and this hearing may be the 

final one with you as Chair of this Committee, I understand. So before I yield, I just want to state that it really has been a privilege 

for me to serve with you on this Committee and in this capacity. 

So I am hoping you remain with us at least on the Committee. I 

am honored that I could serve with the first woman to chair this 

Committee. You have set an incredible standard for the Committee 

by providing clear, competent and collegial leadership. 

I also want to compliment your entire staff for working closely 

with mine on matters before the Committee. So thank you for the 

cooperation. It has come wonderfully. If your time happens to be 

cut short as chair for good reason, I wish you the very best in your 

3

new endeavors, whatever they may be, and extend a heartfelt 

thanks to you for your diligent work in improving the lives of Indian people. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. I want to thank the Vice Chair for 

his leadership. I may be, what, the third member you have worked 

with as ranking member? So I guess that says that we are leaving 

a great deal up to you for continuity with the Committee. And 

thank you for your comments. 

I do believe this may well be my last hearing to chair as Chair 

of this Committee. And I have to say it is with great regret that 

I leave this position. Because it has only been a short tenure here. 

And I have a great deal of passion for Indian Country and the 

issues that affect them. 

So I am definitely not leaving the Committee and I am not leaving that passion. I am just turning the reins over to a very qualified member of our Committee, Senator Tester, who I am very excited, after being in Montana this summer, he and I, visiting a lot 

of Indian Country, I am very excited to have him take on this new 

role and responsibility. I am just going to double my efforts in 

working with all of you on these important issues, because there 

is still a lot to do. 

I certainly want to thank my staff, because they have worked 

hard on a variety of issues this year and have put forth a variety 

of ideas. We appreciate that. Indian Country has continually 

changed and improved in providing for new economic opportunities 

for themselves and the communities around them. That is what we 

are excited about and we want to keep working to preserve those 

economic opportunities moving forward. So I know there is a lot to 

do on that. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I just want to echo the ranking member’s appreciation for your leadership and your vision for this Committee. I too 

hope that you stay on this Committee and remain a valuable contributor to the conversation. Because I think you have been great 

in the position of Chairman and the poor soul that has to follow 

you has to live up to those expectations. 

So we thank you for your leadership and your vision. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. 

As I said, my heart is definitely heavy here, because I have a 

great deal of passion for these issues and representing 29 different 

organizations from our region, these are very, very important 

issues. We just have to keep pushing ahead. 

I think we are one member short of the quorum that we need to 

move out these two nominations and hopefully someone is on their 

way to do that, on either side of the aisle. If I could, I think I am 

just going to go ahead and read my opening statement while they 

are here on the legislative hearing to follow, which is, many of my 

colleagues know that the importance of tribal self-governance has 

been a big issue for this Committee. We are going to be hearing 

about the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 2013. 

4

S. 919, I think everybody understands the importance of the SelfDetermination Act of 1975, because the Act provided a shift in the 

way the Federal Government provides services in Indian Country, 

providing tribes with the authority to take over those services and 

tailor them to meet their communities. The self-governance provisions that have been added over the past 25 years have provided 

tribes with greater flexibility and control of how Federal funds are 

used in their communities and tribal control of these programs provided greater job opportunities and better services for tribal members. 

We have not always had great success in improving conditions in 

Indian Country over the years, but I think it is safe to say that the 

policies of self-determination and self-governance have been the 

most successful policies in U.S. history in dealing with tribal governments. I am sure we are going to hear more about that today. 

Self-governance began with only seven tribes in 1991, now over 

half of all federally-recognized tribes have self-governance agreements with the Department of the Interior for Indian Health Services. These 300 tribes are utilizing over $400 million in Federal 

funding to provide services to their communities. While the programs have been successful, there are always improvements that 

can be made. 

So S. 919 is the culmination of discussions between tribal leaders 

and the Department of the Interior and other stakeholders that 

would streamline the self-governance process. Currently tribes 

must use different negotiation processes for the Department of the 

Interior and Indian Health Services. S. 919 would make that a 

similar process. 

This bill has many other common sense provisions relating to the 

negotiation process, such as negotiating in good faith, timelines on 

decision-making, providing specific reasons that the Secretary of 

the Interior can decline the self-governance compact or funding 

agreement. The Department of the Interior testified in support of 

similar legislation in the House in the last Congress, so I am eager 

to hear their thoughts on this bill and how it continued to evolve 

and hear concerns by both the tribes and the Administration. 

I also want to thank our tribal witnesses for testifying today. 

They represent tribes and tribal consortiums that have been participating in self-governance for 20 years. So certainly they have 

been the pioneers in this particular area. I know that they can continue to suggest how we improve the self-governance program as 

well. 

I particularly want to thank Chairman Ron Allen of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, a real leader in the self-governance movement. And I appreciate his traveling all this way to be here for 

these discussions as well. 

We will look forward to hearing from all of these members, including the Honorable Ron Trahan from the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes in Montana and Jerry Isaac, President of the 

Tanana Chiefs Conference, a consortium of Alaska Native villages. 

And finally, we will hear form Mickey Peercy, the Executive Director of self-governance for the Chocktaw Nation of Oklahoma. 

So again, I just want to say in advance of that part of our hearing today that we will get to you in just a second. 

5

[Whereupon, the Committee proceeded to other business:] 

The CHAIRWOMAN. So now we are going to back to the hearing. 

And I don’t know if any of my other colleagues want to make an 

opening statement. I mentioned the individuals that we are going 

to be hearing from. In the first panel, we are going to hear from 

Kevin Washburn. So if Kevin can come up to the table for his part, 

and then I mentioned the names of those who will be on the second 

panel. Do any of my other colleagues want to make a statement? 

Yes, Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be 

brief here. I want to thank you for scheduling the hearing along 

with the Vice Chairman here. 

Indian self-determination has been in my mind the most successful Federal Indian policy, given the difficult history that our Nation’s indigenous people have had with the policies here in the 

United States. When our tribes can manage their own programs, 

I think they are better equipped to address the disparities that 

exist within our Native populations. 

I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the bill. In Alaska, we continue to experience the failed management of our lands from thousands of miles away by Federal agencies here in D.C. Many of our 

Native communities live right next to and within the boundaries of 

our public lands, our national parks and our wildlife refuges. 

I have stated as the ranking member on the Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee that I would like to see self-governance 

agreements supported and expanded by the Administration. In 

Alaska, the Department of Interior has the authority to use selfgovernance agreements to contract out many operations, functions 

with tribes at nearly all of the public land units in the State. And 

yet we only have two of these in existence. 

So I have called on the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife, to recommit themselves to advocating and advancing 

these agreements which not only help Alaska Natives connect with 

their land but be part of subsistence management. I understand 

that this bill preserves the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the inclusion of non-BIA programs and contracts 

and funding the agreements, local management really means that 

our tribes can continue to practice their customary and traditional 

hunting and fishing. 

I would also like to make a special note and welcome President 

Jerry Isaac of the Tanana Chiefs Conference. He has termed out 

as president of TCC in March. Jerry, I would just like to publicly 

thank you for your dedication, for your commitment, for your leadership for the Tanana Chiefs region. I have always valued your 

guidance and wisdom and know that you will continue in that. 

So we are pleased to have him here before the Committee today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Vice Chairman Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want 

to thank you for holding this hearing. The 1975 Act enacted by 

Congress, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

6

Act, designed to advance a more effective dynamic for Federal tribal relations. Since then, there have been improvements in both the 

Federal tribal relationship and the delivery of service. I think it is 

important that today we consider S. 919, which I have co-sponsored 

with you. 

This bill is intended to build upon those improvements, enhance 

the delivery of services. It is the product of many years of work by 

the tribes, by the Administration, by Congress. I look forward to 

hearing how this bill addresses the interests of stakeholders and 

improves services. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

I want to add an addendum to my previous comments. It certainly has been an honor working with you as the Vice Chairman 

of this Committee. And it has been a smooth working process. I appreciate your staff and the collaboration between our offices. So I 

can definitely say that Indian Country has had a good partner in 

working through your office. So we certainly appreciate working 

with you in the future on this Committee. 

So thank you. We decided that we both had a love for ‘‘yes.’’ And 

I don’t mean just voting aye, but a love for an organization that 

someday will make it into the rock and roll hall of fame called yes. 

But anyway, we will now turn to the Honorable Kevin Washburn 

to hear his testimony from the Department of Interior. Thank you 

for being here today as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. 

If you could just give us your thoughts on where we need to go on 

self-governance. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN WASHBURN, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY—INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chairman and 

members of the Committee. It is an honor to be here, as usual, 

thank you. 

Let me echo the thanks, Madam Chair, for your service. It is 

really appropriate that you actually chaired this hearing, because 

the original Self-Determination bill in 1975 was sponsored by Scoop 

Jackson. And Mark Trahant has written a terrific little book about 

the passage of that. So it is nice to have someone from the State 

of Washington, a Senator from the State of Washington presiding 

over this. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. If I could just interject, we certainly lament 

the passing of Forrest Gerard, who is featured in that book as one 

of the pioneers of Indian policy here in Washington, D.C., and was 

a great hero. That book talks about all that he did to move Indian 

policy in a new direction. He just recently passed, so I wanted everybody to know how appreciative we were of his service to our 

Country. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Chairwoman. That underscores the 

importance of all the staff around the room, because that is often 

who helps get all of this done. So thank you. And his passing was 

tough. He was the first person to have held my job, actually, during 

the Carter Administration, when this position was elevated to an 

assistant secretary position. 

7

He died over the holidays, and I was able to go out to the funeral. It was a sad day, but he was well celebrated and he accomplished a lot, not the least of which was turning this whole ship 

of state toward self-determination, which has been, as several of 

you said, the most successful policy toward American Indian tribes 

this Nation has ever had. It was started in 1975 with the Indian 

Self-Determination Education Assistance Act, which was updated 

in 1998, when the self-governance demonstration project was created to allow compacts with tribes that were broader than just contracts. That was made permanent in 1994. 

As you said, Madam Chair, in your opening statement, we have 

a lot of tribes that are now engaged in the self-governance effort. 

And frankly, we are doing a lot better job meeting the trust responsibility when it is Indian tribes that are providing those services 

directly to their people, rather than through Federal officials. 

And I think that is largely because of accountability. Tribal leaders are just much more accountable to their populations and they 

know better the needs of their population than general schedule 

Federal employees ever could, even though everybody at the BIA 

and the BIE and IHS and other agencies who often have tribes’ 

best interests at heart, they can’t ever know the tribes’ best interests as well as their own elected officials do. 

So I believe that that accountability has made this a very good 

regime. I believe it is now time to improve the regime even more 

and I think that is what S. 919 does. So I ask you all for your support of S. 919. 

I don’t need to go a whole lot deeper than that. I have written 

testimony and I have read the very good testimony by each of the 

other witnesses, some of whom have been at the forefront of selfdetermination and self-governance for a very, very long time. I am 

grateful for their work. 

Aside from accountability, I think the other thing that self-governance brings to tribes is flexibility. Tribes need flexibility in how 

to provide services, and the self-governance compacts provide that. 

And S. 919 will enhance that flexibility even more. 

I have a couple of members of my staff here who work really 

hard on these issues, Hank Ortiz and Sharee Freeman. They are 

the ones who work where the rubber meets the road on these 

issues. And we are supportive of S. 919. We are working on some 

little tweaks to the language to address concerns by the IHS and 

Bureau of Reclamation. But we are supportive of the legislation 

overall and certainly the intention of the legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Washburn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN WASHBURN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY—INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chair Barrasso, and members of the 

Committee. My name is Kevin Washburn. I am the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Department on S. 919, the Department 

of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act of 2013. 

S. 919 seeks to amend both Title I and Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) (25 U.S.C. § § 450 et seq.). In more than 200 

years of federal Indian policy, the policies of self-determination and self-governance 

that have developed during the past four decades have produced, by far, the most 

successful relationship between the United States and its tribes. These policies have 

8

also increased tribal governmental capacities and improved services to Indian people. 

The Administration strongly supports the principles of self-determination and 

self-governance, and consistent with this support we believe the ISDEAA should be 

strengthened to make it work better for the Federal Government and for Indian 

tribal governments. Accordingly, the Administration supports S. 919. 

President Obama recognizes that federally recognized Indian tribes are sovereign, 

self-governing political entities that have a government-to-government relationship 

with the United States, as expressly recognized in the United States Constitution. 

Secretary Jewell, too, is a strong supporter of the principle of tribal self-determination, the principles of the ISDEAA, and is committed to working to further tribal 

self-governance. 

In 1975, the Congress enacted the ISDEAA, Pub. L. No. 93–638. Title I allows 

a tribe to contract individual programs away from the Department and operate the 

programs as, in essence, tribal programs. Title I also gives a tribe the latitude to 

redesign and rebudget Federal programs that it assumes. 

In 1988, Congress enacted Title III of the ISDEAA as a demonstration project, 

which allowed an Indian tribe to contract several programs from the Department, 

and allowed Indian tribes to reallocate funds and redesign those programs to best 

benefit their communities. In 1994, Congress made the demonstration project permanent in Title IV of the ISDEAA, Pub. L. No. 103–413. 

Title IV provides resources to Indian tribes, enabling them to plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, functions, and activities for tribal citizens according to priorities established by their tribal governments. Under Title I 

and Title IV, Indian tribes have greater control and flexibility in the use of these 

funds, reduced reporting requirements, and the authority to redesign or consolidate 

programs, services, functions, and activities. Title I and Title IV generally allow Indian tribes to reallocate funds during the year and carry over unexpended funds 

into the next fiscal year without Secretarial approval. As a result, these funds can 

be used with more flexibility to address each Indian tribe’s unique condition. 

Funding agreements under the ISDEAA have helped to strengthen governmentto-government relationships with Indian tribes. Self-determination and self-governance tribes have been good managers of the programs they have undertaken. Many 

times, tribal governments add their own resources to the programs and are able to 

fashion programs to meet their needs and the particular needs of their members. 

Tribal governments are often better suited than the Federal Government to address 

the changing needs of their members. Indian tribal governments have often observed that, when they are working under self-determination contracts and self-governance funding agreements, they are not viewed by the Federal Government as 

just another Federal contractor, but rather that their work reflects a true government-to-government relationship characterized by mutually agreed-to responsibilities and tribal empowerment. 

For nearly a decade, Indian tribes have asked Congress to update Title I and Title 

IV to address various issues, to include more non-BIA programs, and to streamline 

the process of negotiating annual funding agreements. S. 919 goes a long way toward accomplishing these goals. Non-BIA programs, however, often have different 

characteristics that suggest a more tailored approach to the specific programs. For 

example, the Bureau of Reclamation uses a methodology in its budget formulation 

that is different from BIA’s methodology because of the nature of Reclamation’s appropriations for large projects. Section 202 of S. 919 is intended to address those 

differences, and the Department looks forward to working with the Committee to 

ensure section 202 meets that objective. 

The Department recognizes the need for the self-determination and self-governance programs to evolve to improve and increase the frequency of funding agreements. The Administration is proud to report that, after a series of negotiations 

with tribal stakeholders that began over three years ago, we reached agreement on 

a number of issues and the language is embodied in S. 919. Our agreement on this 

critical legislative priority for Indian County reflects the Administration’s commitment to restore the integrity of the government-to-government relationship with 

Tribal Nations. The Native American communities in this country confront many 

challenges, and this Administration is committed to working with Tribal Nations to 

create opportunities for all of our communities to thrive and flourish. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions 

the Committee may have.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you for that testimony. I do have a 

question for you about various tribes and why it has worked in 

9

some areas and why others have been more reluctant. But I have 

to ask you about this contract support question, because we had a 

little bit of success in the fiscal year 2014 budget. I want to thank 

my colleague, Senator Murkowski, because she has been a loud 

voice in making sure that our budget reflected not having a cap. 

So my question is, does the Department have a plan on how it 

is going to pay contract support costs moving forward since there 

is no longer a cap in place? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, Madam Chair, we are working on a plan. 

One of the things we need to do, so the process for us now is to 

develop an operating plan that we submit to OMB and then back 

to the Appropriations Committee to explain how we are going to 

operate for the rest of the year on the Omnibus Bill. We are wrestling with that, and we are consulting with tribes about that. We 

have a call on Monday, both IHS and the Indian Affairs at Interior 

have a call with tribal leaders on Monday, set up by the White 

House, to consult about that. 

The Administration had rolled out a plan to cap that those contract support costs, which was done without any consultation with 

tribes and was soundly rejected by tribes and by Congress. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And the courts. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, sure, and the courts, too in some respects. 

So we are trying to figure out how to go forward. Honestly, the 

Appropriations bill punted the issue back to us. They basically 

said, we are not going to adopt caps, and we are remanding the 

issue back to you to figure out how to meet contract support costs. 

I personally know how important contract support costs are to 

the ability of tribes to do these jobs that we ask them to do. And 

I think that we would like to get to a place where we can provide 

full contract support cost funding. We think we are headed in that 

direction. But we need to consult with tribes about how that will 

work, and we are anxious to start that and then to submit our operating plan and get approval. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The reason I am bringing this up now, I certainly want to emphasize the success that we have had, thanks 

again to everybody on this Committee and I think a previous hearing trying to escalate the issue with those in the Administration to 

understand the court decision and where we have been. Certainly 

taking off the cap allows for a solution to be had. I don’t think it 

is just kicking the problem back, saying let’s consult. It’s basically 

us saying, let’s make sure that there is fair compensation. 

The reason I am bringing this up is because I have detected some 

tribes in their discussions and thoughts about self-governance 

thinking, well, I like the formula that I have now. People are concerned, if they move toward self-governance, are they going to get 

the aid and support, or are you going to have another contract support issue come up where you’re not getting the full compensation 

to do the job and responsibilities you are asked for. 

Do you see that with tribes? Do you think that is why there is 

some disparity with tribes on self-governance issues? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, Madam Chair. There are a lot of different 

views from the tribes out there about how we handle these issues. 

And we need to hear all of them before we decide. 

10

The Appropriations Committee, their language that they are remanding the issue back to us to deal with, and that is the language 

they put in the report. So we are trying to figure that out. We 

know the tribes need contract support cost payments and we work 

with the Indian Health Service because they face the same issue. 

We have different challenges regarding these issues than the IHS 

has, but we are trying to work with them at the request of tribes 

and their counsel to make sure we coordinate with IHS as we address these issues. So we will be doing consultation with tribes to 

figure out how to go forward, not just for this year, fiscal year 

2014, but also as we prepare the FY 2015 budget, which is currently in process. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Do you think there are tribes that don’t move 

forward on self-governance because they are concerned about what 

that means as far as compensation? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, Madam Chair. We actually think that once 

it is clear that every tribe gets contract support costs, no questions, 

that we are going to draw more tribes to self-governance because 

they can count on that money. And so we have to plan for that, too. 

So we are planning for that in our budget process, planning for the 

notion that maybe there will be more tribes that are engaged in 

self-governance, because they can now count on getting contract 

support costs that they need to execute these contracts and operate 

these contracts. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, good to see you again. I appreciate your being here. 

The Department of the Interior administers a wide spectrum of 

programs and projects that serve Indian communities. Section 202 

of the bill contains limitations on modifying or affecting projects 

not included in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, including water settlements. 

So your testimony suggested that more work was needed on this 

specific provision. I wonder what recommendations you might have 

for us in terms of refining that provision. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Vice Chair. We are working with 

your staff, Senate Committee staff, to try and figure out what that 

language would be. The problem with the language is that different 

lawyers read it to mean different things. We feel like we need to 

get to clarity. 

I think everybody agrees with the long-term intention, where we 

are going with this. But if the lawyers can’t all agree on what it 

means, then we need to make it more clear. So we are working on 

that. 

So I don’t have specific language for you, but our lawyers and 

your lawyers are talking about trying to clarify that language. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate that. Just one last question. During the 111th Congress, in examining a prior but similar bill to 

this, the Congressional Budget Office thought that implementation 

would cost about a million dollars a year over five years. They indicated the department would use that extra million dollars for you 

to hire additional staff, to make equipment upgrades. 

11

Do you see the Administration believing that this additional 

funding is necessary? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Vice Chair, I am not sure if it is necessary or 

not. But I will tell you, that is a fairly modest investment in what 

has been the most successful Federal Indian policy towards tribes 

ever in our history. So if that is the cost, I think it is something 

that we would be willing to bear. 

We have a really wonderful Office of Self-Governance in the Indian Affairs area of Interior, run by Sharee Freeman, who is here 

with me today. She runs a very good staff, and we have actually 

just authorized her to hire two more staff because we need to be 

serving tribes better, we need to be getting money out quicker to 

tribes and that sort of thing under these compacts. 

So that office frankly needs to grow a little bit more, probably, 

to help tribes get their appropriations, their money quicker, so that 

they can do the job better. And so we are doing a little bit of hiring 

in that area already. 

I don’t know exactly what the costs will be, but if there is a modest increase in investment, it is well worth it, I believe. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Assistant Secretary Washburn, and I want to welcome the members on the next panel, one of which is Chairman Ron Trahan from 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Montana. Thank 

you for making the long haul here, and we look forward to what 

you have to say. 

Secretary Washburn, we have heard statements from tribal leaders that the BIA is more difficult to navigate when compared to 

IHS, when it comes to entering into contracts. Could you tell us 

how S. 919 may better enable the BIA to respond to the needs of 

tribal governments? 

Mr. WASHBURN. I am not going to respond as to whether it is a 

fair criticism or not, except to note that the Indian Health Service 

has one function, one very important function, which is health care. 

And we have to do everything else, from water and irrigation to 

law enforcement to welfare assistance to housing to roads. It runs 

the gamut, education to realty. 

So we bring different challenges to these issues. I do believe that 

S. 919 will make us function, the tribes prefer the way IHS functions to the way we function. 

Senator TESTER. Correct. 

Mr. WASHBURN. And this will make us function more like IHS 

does. And I think that is one of the things that really benefits the 

tribes, because there is some uniformity there. It is going to be 

more difficult than it is for IHS, because we have so many more 

different functions and different kinds of activities that we do. 

But I think that it will, if it works better for tribes, ultimately 

it works better for us, because Federal Indian policy works better 

and the services get to the people better. So it is going to be a little 

bit more of a challenge to us, but we can live with that. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Looking at it from a tribal leadership 

standpoint, what kind of flexibility will S. 919 provide tribal leadership as tribes try to assert more home rule? 

12

Mr. WASHBURN. One of the things it does is it puts much more 

of the onus on the Federal Government to act in a timely manner. 

It puts the onus on us to negotiate in good faith, which, there 

shouldn’t have to be a law to say that when we negotiate we have 

to do it in good faith, but it will require that. So it doesn’t matter 

who the Administration is, there will always be good faith negotiating or presumably a legal remedy if there is not. 

So that is sort of the big thing that it helps with. It will require 

us to act in a much more timely way, which ultimately will get 

money to tribes quicker. 

Senator TESTER. Beside supporting S. 919, what can you tell us 

that the Obama Administration is doing to help support more selfgovernance in Indian Country? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, the FTEs that I talked about, we are increasing the size of that office. And frankly, part of the reason we 

are doing that is because Sharee Freeman, the director of that office, when I asked her how can we increase the number of tribes 

engaged in self-governance, she said, I need to get on the road. She 

said she needs to get on the road to talk to tribes and to get out 

to do some evangelizing, do some recruiting, basically. But her staff 

is so thin that she can’t be away from the office to do that. 

So she has vowed to me that if I can get her more staff in the 

office, she will get out on the road to talk to more tribes to tell 

them the advantages of self-governance and ultimately we think 

that that will improve. 

She has also been working really hard to improve training on 

self-governance issues. We have even sort of been looking at, in addition to S. 919, what is the next stage for self-governance? What 

does self-governance 2.0 look like? And Ms. Freeman has engaged 

the State Department to see, when we are providing aid to foreign 

countries, how does that work. We have been trying to be very creative in trying to figure out what the next development of self-governance should be. 

Senator TESTER. Do you have the budgetary ability? In other 

words, do you have the dollars to bring some additional staff on? 

Mr. WASHBURN. We are finding ways to accomplish that. Mostly 

stealing from Peter to pay Paul. But this is one of the most important things we do. So we need to find the staff to be able to fix it. 

Senator TESTER. Sounds good. Thank you. I appreciate your 

work. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, Dr. Washburn. I think you have the problem solved 

here in terms of how this Administration can do more when it 

comes to encouraging tribal self-governance. It goes back to the 

question that the Chairwoman asked in terms of full support for 

contract support costs. You mentioned that if tribes know that they 

can count on this, if they know that they are going to be reimbursed fully, if the uncertainty that they have seen is eliminated, 

I am not so convinced that you need to go on the road with a staff 

to try to sell it. I think it will sell itself. 

But when you have uncertainty because you don’t know whether 

you are going to get that reimbursement, if you think that that reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:29 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 088302 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\88302.TXT JACK
13

imbursement is going to be 70 cents on the dollar, you are going 

to have tribes that are saying, I am going to sit back on this for 

a while. 

So I would suggest that as you engage in the consultation, which 

I think is absolutely appropriate, that it be a very, very clear message to our tribes that the commitment that has been made is a 

commitment for full contract support costs, as the courts have directed, as the acts require. So I would certainly think that is how 

you answer the question of Senator Tester there in terms of what 

can be done. 

I mentioned in my comments that there is a fair amount of disappointment in Alaska with the management of fish and wildlife 

and of public lands in the State. I have called for an expansion of 

these tribal self-governance agreements within our Federal agencies, specifically the national parks and national wildlife refuges. 

How do you feel about this? Do you think there is a role for these 

Federal agencies in working, whether it is with TCC or other tribes 

in terms of management of the lands in their areas? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, Madam Senator. I actually think that no 

one knows the lands better than the Alaska Natives do. So they 

can be trusted to help manage those lands themselves. We don’t 

currently have trust lands in Alaska, so it is mostly other Federal 

lands. I think that we have to look to Alaska Natives to help us 

manage those lands, and they can do a good job. They are very 

competent, they know those lands well. 

And especially at a time now where with climate change, those 

lands are changing, as the ice is changing dramatically. So I think 

that is right, I think there are a lot of institutions and organizations in Alaska that can do this job well. 

Almost all of the Indian Health Service activity in Alaska, and 

maybe all of it, is contracted to tribes and tribal consortia. And 

they do a great job. So I think the other parts of the Federal Government should trust that they can work well with Alaska Natives. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What I think it is an important example to 

look to is what we have done on the health side. I think we have 

done a remarkable job. And it is these partnerships that have 

worked very effectively to the benefit of Alaska’s native peoples 

when it comes to the health care. I think we can do more again 

when it comes to management of our public lands, and I would 

hope that our office would be working with us as we work to expand that. 

Another issue that I have raised, and have asked for consideration by this Administration is ensuring that there is a place for 

Alaska Native residents on the Federal subsistence board, basically 

putting more subsistence users on that Federal subsistence board. 

What are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. WASHBURN. I know that they looked at this board carefully 

in 2010, I believe, and suggested some changes to it. That was back 

when Secretary Salazar was in charge. And we do have, we have 

had Alaska Native leadership chairing the board. I think that is 

very important. 

The board is mostly composed of land management agencies and 

then the BIA. We are not a land management agency currently in 

Alaska. Then we have the citizen members of the board, one of 

14

whom is Alaska Native and chairs the board. So I wouldn’t presume to say what the final composition of the board should be, but 

I think that the board’s work is very, very important and Alaska 

Natives need to have a strong voice, because that is really who the 

board serves. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would ask you to take a look at that as 

an issue as well as the rural determination process. There is of 

course a great deal of concern that this process for determining 

whether or not a village is rural or not is a fair and adequate process. I have asked for review of that, too. So several things I think 

we can be working on to try to ensure that when it comes to Alaska 

Natives and tribal self-governance, self-determination that we are 

really fulfilling that intent to the maximum extent. 

Just one last thing. As you know, I was extremely, extremely disappointed in Secretary of the Interior’s decision as it related to 

King Cove. I felt that the report that was made public by you after 

your visit was inadequate and did not adequately address the trust 

responsibility that I believe the DOI has to Alaska Native residents 

there in King Cove. So I would ask that we set up a meeting in 

my office or I will come to your office so we can discuss this further. If we can do it before the President’s Day recess, I would appreciate any consideration you would give. I am sorry to put you 

on the spot and I don’t expect you to answer me as to when we can 

do it, but I would like to have that sit-down with you. 

Mr. WASHBURN. I would be happy to make that a priority, Senator Murkowski. The trust responsibility, I understand your position, let me just say that I did get to weigh in, and weighed in very 

strongly after hearing from the community of King Cove. I think 

the trust responsibility is something that we share, the Congress 

and the Executive Branch share. So I would push back a little bit, 

because if the Congress had made more clear what the trust responsibility means in that context, it might have produced a different result. But we certainly have a trust responsibility too, and 

I am happy to talk more about that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I look forward to that visit. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Begich? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wasn’t 

here at the beginning, but I first want to say, from my limited time 

on here so far, thank you for the role you have played as Chair of 

the Committee. I greatly appreciate the guidance you have given 

me as a new member on the Committee. So thank you for everything you have been able to do here. 

Let me also say, I am not sure what my time will be, but to 

Jerry, I may be here, I may not be, but I want to say thank you 

for coming all the way from Alaska. It is always good to have Alaskans here, where it is colder here than there, which is hard to explain to people. When I got a photo today of green grass in Anchorage, you have to wonder what is going on. So I appreciate your 

being here. 

15

I think we all agree that S. 919 is an important piece of legislation. But I want to cut to a couple of pieces, and again, always good 

to see you and be able to ask you a few questions and kind of follow 

up on what some other members have talked about. Obviously contract support costs are always on our mind. I think BIA is moving 

forward, I think the court has ruled and you are moving forward 

on settlement issues. 

But the challenge is this, I guess, when you look at the court’s 

ruling, at least in the case that when they ruled they said between 

fiscal year 1994 and 2001, appropriations covered only between 77 

and 92 percent of the tribe’s aggregated contract support costs. So 

it begs the question, and it will lead to my larger question, and 

that is, if we know what you paid and we know what you haven’t 

paid, because it is a mathematical issue here, but it seems based 

on the timetables that it will take to settle some of these issues, 

it could take a couple of years. 

The question I have for you is the shortfall reports that are given 

to Congress annually, which in theory, and you can correct me if 

I am wrong here, the shortfall reports say here is what we are falling short in paying. In theory those are factual, based on data, so 

we know if you paid X and the shortfall report says this, then that 

is what is owed. So why is it going to take so long to settle these 

when we know what is owed? Because I can only assume those reports are correct. Because those were submitted to Congress. 

So help me understand this dilemma, because what I keep hearing from folks as well, they want to re-examine what the costs really were. But then I would argue if that is the case, the shortfall 

reports were useless. But they are shortfall reports. And the court 

then says, here is what has been paid, so it seems like a simple 

math problem, then pay what is owed. Help me understand that. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Senator Begich. And I won’t do that. 

Senator BEGICH. But I need you to do that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WASHBURN. It is fairly complicated. Let me just say this. 

When we report an aggregate shortfall report, it doesn’t say how 

much each tribe is owed. So that is a big aggregate. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me pause you there. But you then agree the 

total amount in those reports is what is short, what is owed? You 

just said that, right? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, I don’t know if that is, this is a matter in 

litigation so I am on thin ice here. I will get in trouble whatever 

I say, basically. 

Senator BEGICH. There is thick ice in D.C., there is thin ice in 

Alaska right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WASHBURN. Let me say this. At the BIA we are working 

through a process with plaintiffs’ counsel to statistically sample. 

There is a big question about whether the tribes have to prove up 

their actual expenditures or not. And there is a big debate about 

that. The tribes say, well, we didn’t necessarily have actual expenditures, because we didn’t get the money to spend. And that is a fair 

point. But under ordinary Federal contracting law, if you can’t 

show that you incurred a cost, then you can’t get reimbursement 

16

for that cost, I gather. And I am probably oversimplifying things, 

but these are the ways I understand this. 

I will tell you that I think S. 919 will help solve this problem 

going forward, because it will make really clear which Federal contracting laws apply to tribes and which don’t. 

Senator BEGICH. I appreciate that, but I guess my point is, and 

I know you are trying to figure out and describe this in the public 

arena when we are in litigation issues. But can I ask you this, 

then, can you submit to me or to the Committee, whatever would 

be the appropriate channel, but I would like to get a more definitive timetable of how you are going to settle these. Because my 

worry is that these will just go on and on and on. The Supreme 

Court has ruled, we know the amounts, or we know the potential 

aggregate. 

Then I would like a comment at some point, not necessarily now 

but in writing, if you don’t agree with the total aggregate in their 

shortfall reports, in other words, at the end of the day, if we settle 

with tribes and it is this much money based on those reports, then 

that should be easy. But if you are saying those may not be the 

right numbers, then we have to figure out why those reports are 

being submitted and what is the better way to approach this. 

Because really, first off, we never want to see those reports, because you should be paying 100 percent. But I am a little perplexed 

by that. Because when we see those reports, we assume this is 

what is owed. But if you are saying that is not exactly right, there 

are some variances, then that makes me, especially as an appropriator, a little wondering what is going on there. So you have to help 

me there. You don’t have to do it now, but if you can kind of think 

about that issue. 

Then the last, and if this puts you on the spot you don’t have 

to answer it. But I just want to follow up on what Senator Murkowski said, especially about King Cove. I sensed, the comment you 

made is if the Congress had defined the trust relationship differently, the outcome may have been different. What did you mean 

by that? And why I say that is because, did you have a different 

opinion on those conversations on King Cove? And if you don’t 

want to answer, I understand. But I sense that there might have 

been some differences here, and if there is, what were they? Then 

second, what do we have to change to give you that authority if the 

outcome will be different. I think that is kind of the goal. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Senator Murkowski met with me before I went 

to King Cove and very clearly asked me to look at sort of the trust 

responsibility implications of what we were doing, and her staff. 

We met with a lot of her staff and her staff were very thoughtful. 

So I looked at the statute, and it was part of an omnibus statute, 

this portion about Isenbeck and King Cove. The omnibus statute 

had several provisions. It was a big public lands act. 

Senator BEGICH. Public lands went in 2009. 

Mr. WASHBURN. That is right. And the trust responsibility was 

discussed in other places with regard to tribes. But the trust responsibility was not mentioned once with regard to the King Cove 

community at Isenbeck. It is Congress that first defines the trust 

responsibility. It is up to you, it is up to Congress to say what does 

the trust responsibility mean in any given context. 

17

So that is what I found when I looked. When I looked at what 

does the trust responsibility mean here, I learned that we had no 

guidance from Congress whatsoever on that point. It is Congress’ 

duty in the first instance to define the trust responsibility. 

We certainly have a trust responsibility, too. Executive Branch 

bears that responsibility. But it is formally defined by Congress, 

and Congress has plenary authority over Indian Affairs. So if it is 

defined by Congress, we have to follow that. It was utterly absent 

in that statute. 

So I would invite you the next time, if you want to make sure 

you get this done, you talk specifically about the trust responsibility to King Cove. This is a difficult issue. There are strong feelings on both sides of it. The Secretary I don’t think was happy to 

be in the position of having to make this very difficult decision, 

which places very important values against one another. And I am 

frankly sorry to have to be in a position to make decisions like 

that. These are the hardest decisions we make. Because they make 

a real difference in people’s lives and lots of people care about 

them. 

So that is what I was getting at. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. And as always, you are 

great on testimony. Thank you for always coming to Alaska. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, and again, Assistant Secretary 

Washburn, thank you for being here. I don’t think that any of us 

conspired with our staff to make this all about contract support. I 

think it is just a natural continuation of our quest to make sure 

that this issue is rectified. Both of my colleagues, Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich, invited me to Alaska this summer and 

I went. I have to say that the Alaska Native Medical Center is a 

state of the art facility, not just in Indian Country, but in the entire United States. They deserve their contract support and they 

are leading the way, juxtaposed to an IHS-run facility that is not 

necessarily innovating, meeting the needs of the community. So 

those are the two paths and choices, move toward the kind of innovation that is being delivered in Indian Country and in self-governance. So we really have to rectify this issue. 

But I just wanted you to know, I don’t think we all conspired, 

it is just a natural outflow. This is part of this discussion of selfgovernance and it is the complaints and concerns that we have 

heard before. I am sure the next panel is going to tell us a lot 

about just the day to day details of the success of self-governance. 

But we have to get this larger issue out from hanging over the selfgovernance issue. 

Again, thank you for being here. 

Mr. WASHBURN. It is my honor. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. So we will hear now from our second panel of 

witnesses, as I have introduced them previously. We are so thankful for them being here. 

Ron Allen from the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; the Honorable 

Ron Trahan from the Salish Kootenai Tribes of Montana; Jerry 

Isaac, from the Tanana Chiefs Conference of Fairbanks, Alaska; 

and Mr. Mickey Peercy, Executive Director for Self-Governance for 

the Choctaw Nation. 

18

We are going to start with you, Mr. Allen. Again, thank you for 

being here, thank you for your leadership on the self-governance 

issue overall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. W. RON ALLEN, CHAIRMAN/CEO, 

JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is always an honor and a privilege to come before this Committee to testify on behalf of any legislation that affects the welfare 

and the interest of Indian Country, and my tribe specifically. I do 

want to say that I am disappointed to hear that you are moving 

on as the Chair. You have done a great job on behalf of Indian 

Country and we are very proud of you, coming from Washington 

State, knowing the 29 tribes of Washington State, that you know 

our issues and you know the issues of Indian Country. 

I know it is almost like drinking from a fire hose when you deal 

with the complex issues of Indian Country, from Alaska to Florida. 

Senator Tester, I am glad to hear that you are going to step in. I 

know you are a great champion as well. And Senator Murkowski 

as well, on the Republican side, you have been a staunch supporter 

of Indian Country and our sovereignty. And we deeply appreciate 

your leadership as well. 

I am here to testify on behalf of S. 919. This is the culmination 

of a long negotiation between the tribes and the Congress and the 

Administration. It is a bill that has a lot of blood, sweat and tears 

written all over it. I want to thank you and your staff on both sides 

of the aisle who have worked very hard for us, with us, to make 

this thing happen. Assistant Secretary Washburn and his staff 

have been deeply engaged with us. 

For the most part, on the BIA side, those issues were worked out 

a long time ago. The heart of the matter ended up being more on 

the non-BIA side in clarifying some issues that you will see identified in Section 202. 

But the bottom line is that this this bill brings Title 4 in line 

with Title 5. It continues on with the empowerment of tribal governments. I want to pause here and say, just the backdrop of our 

history in America and the family of governments, Indian governments were the first governments before this Union was even 

formed. We are recognized in the Constitution. 

So it took a lot of generations and a lot of years for the true relationship between Indian governments and the United States and 

the sister governments throughout America to have a respectful relationship to advance the interests of Indian Country and all the 

people that we serve. 

This bill is about that. It is about empowering tribal governments. Yes, it affects all of our programs, natural resources, law 

enforcement, education and so forth. And that is our duty, just like 

it is your duty to serve all of America and all of its interests. We 

just happen to be smaller, including our largest tribe, the Navajo 

Nation, that now is venturing into self-governance as well. 

So as you noted, there are well over half the tribes now that are 

in self-governance and moving forward. This bill is going to help 

make that happen. It is going to clean up the relationship. It is 

19

going to improve the process. It is going to clarify the relationship 

with regard to construction projects that are in place. 

And last but not least, it is going to make sure that it protects 

the administrative responsibilities with regard to non-BIA programs and with regard to legislation that affects water rights 

issues, as complex as they may be, throughout Indian Country. 

That was one of the tough issues that we had to deal with, and we 

think that we have worked out some language that addresses that 

issue and protects the interests of both the tribes and the interests 

of the Administration as it carries out its responsibilities in that 

mater. 

Self-governance really, when I reflect back, I was at the first 

hearing in 1987, as a result of the exposes that came out of the 

fraud, abuse, misuse of Federal funds. And ended up culminating 

in self-governance and the approval of Title 4 in 1994. A fascinating experience, and it has been a fascinating experience ever 

since then. It is an unequivocal success, the flexibility, the ability 

for us to take these very limited Federal resources and use them 

more efficiently and more effectively to address our communities, 

as this is the success of self-governance. It is the empowerment, it 

is the trust between the United States and the Indian governments 

and our leadership that we know how to use these resources, consistent with their intent and as they were applied to our people. 

It doesn’t always work, one size fit all, Washington, D.C., you 

folks certainly know that. This allows us to be able to tailor it to 

tribe in Montana, tribes in Washington, tribes in Alaska and so 

forth across Indian Country. That flexibility that Kevin Washburn 

referred to, the strengthening of our planning and management 

issues, affirming of our tribal sovereignty is a critical issue that 

definitely helps us move our agenda forward. 

It is not perfect. It doesn’t address all of our issues. But it does 

move the agenda forward, it moves it forward constructively, and 

I think as a result of it, as you have asked earlier in opening remarks and that dialogue with Assistant Secretary Washburn, that 

is it going to result in more tribes getting engaged with the selfgovernance process and forum. 

I think that it is important to know that it allows us to use these 

resources to leverage other resources, including Federal resources 

that we weren’t able to do before. If tribes don’t have resources to 

leverage other Federal resources, sometimes they don’t have an option and opportunity. This provides them that option and that opportunity. 

Final offer, and some of the provisions that are in my testimony, 

and you can review them at your pleasure, will show the different 

steps that allow us to improve the negotiations. Part of the problems, sometimes tribes can’t find out what is their fair share of a 

program A, B and C. They need to identify that so they are comfortable and that people are comfortable that they can take over 

that program and administer it in the interest of the tribe and the 

people that they serve. 

I will conclude with, this is an important chapter we are turning. 

I really hope that we can move this legislation forward, that the 

House has a complementary piece of legislation and that this year 

we can finally see Title 4 be consistent with Title 5. 

20

1Source: Dep’t of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, FY 2014, 

Indian Affairs, Appendix 7.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W. RON ALLEN, CHAIRMAN/CEO, JAMESTOWN

S’KLALLAM TRIBE

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to testify once 

again on this critical legislation. My name is W. Ron Allen and I am the Chairman/

CEO of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe located in Washington State. I am also the 

Chairman of the Department of the Interior (DOI) Self-Governance Advisory Committee (SGAC), and I offer my testimony today in both capacities. Collectively, I am 

representing well over 300 Tribes that participate in Self-Governance within DOI 

and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Indian Health Service 

(IHS). 

I am pleased to testify in support of S. 919, a bill to strengthen Indian Tribes’ 

opportunities for Self-Governance by amending Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) (P.L. 93–638, as amended). The 

proposed Title IV amendments advance three basic goals:

• To bring Title IV up to par with Title V, the permanent Self-Governance authority within HHS;

• To clean up the construction provisions of Title IV; and

• To maintain unchanged the discretionary authority to enter Self-Governance 

agreements with non-BIA agencies in Interior.

Before expanding on the need for these critical amendments, I will talk briefly 

about the success of the Self-Governance policy over the past 20 years and the Tribal-federal collaboration to expand that success through the Title IV amendments. 

The Success of Self-Governance 

The increasing number of Tribes that have opted to participate in the Self-Governance program on an annual basis reflects the success of the program. In Fiscal 

Year 1991, the first year Self-Governance agreements were negotiated by the BIA 

with Tribes, only seven Tribes entered into agreements. At that time, the total dollar amount compacted by Indian Tribes was $27.1 million. By Fiscal Year 2013, 254 

Tribes and Tribal consortia entered into 106 funding agreements, operating $432 

million in programs, functions, services and activities. 1 The growth in Tribal participation in Self-Governance revealed by these numbers reflects the success of the program. Under Self-Governance, Tribes have assumed the management of a large 

number of DOI programs, including roads, housing, education, law enforcement, 

court systems, and natural resources management. Why? Simply put, Self-Governance works. 

• Self-Governance Promotes Efficiency. Devolving federal administration from 

Washington, D.C. to Indian Tribes across the United States has strengthened 

the efficient management and delivery of federal programs impacting Indian 

Tribes. As this Committee well knows, prior to Self-Governance, up to 90 percent of federal funds earmarked for Indian Tribes were used by federal agencies 

for administrative purposes. Under Self-Governance, program responsibility and 

accountability has shifted from distant federal personnel to elected Tribal leaders. In turn, program efficiency has increased as politically accountable Tribal 

leaders leverage their knowledge of local resources, conditions and trends to 

make cost-saving management decisions.

• Self-Governance Strengthens Tribal Planning and Management Capacities. By 

placing Tribes in decisionmaking positions, Self-Governance vests Tribes with 

ownership of the critical ingredient necessary to plan our own futures—information. At the same time, Self-Governance has provided a generation of Tribal 

members with management experience beneficial for the continued effective 

stewardship of our resources.

• Self-Governance Allows for Flexibility. Self-Governance allows Tribes great flexibility when making decisions concerning allocation of funds. Whether managing 

programs in a manner consistent with traditional values or allocating funds to 

meet changing priorities, Self-Governance Tribes are developing in ways consistent with their own needs and priorities, not a monolithic federal policy.

21

2 E.g., SCIA Hearing on H.R. 4347, Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act of 

2010 (Nov. 18, 2010); SCIA Oversight Hearing on the Success and Shortfall of Self-Governance 

under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act after Twenty Years (May 13, 

2008). 

• Self-Governance Affirms Sovereignty. By utilizing signed compacts, Self-Governance affirms the fundamental government-to-government relationship between 

Indian Tribes and the U.S. Government. It also advances a political agenda of 

both the Congress and the Administration: namely, shifting federal functions to 

local governmental control.

In short, Self-Governance works, because it places management responsibility in 

the hands of those who care most about seeing Indian programs succeed: Indian 

Tribes and their members. 

Need for Title IV Amendments 

As important and successful as the Self-Governance initiative has been for my 

Tribe and so many others, it is not perfect. Shortly after Title IV was enacted in 

1994, the DOI began a rulemaking process to develop and promulgate regulations. 

The process was a failure in many ways. Ultimately, five years after the rulemaking 

process began, DOI published regulations that, from the Tribal perspective, failed 

to fully implement Congress’s intent when Title IV was enacted. Instead of moving 

the initiative forward, it moved backwards. 

Tribal leaders began discussions about how the statute could be amended. At the 

same time, Congress in 2000 enacted Title V of the ISDEAA which created a permanent Self-Governance program within HHS, and which directly addressed many of 

the issues that proved to be problematic during the Title IV rulemaking process. 

But many of the improvements and Tribal authority reflected in Title V remain absent from Title IV. Consequently, many Self-Governance Tribes are forced to operate 

under two separate sets of administrative requirements, one for IHS and one for 

BIA. 

Tribal leaders decided that Title IV needed to be amended to incorporate many 

of Title V’s provisions. It has long been a top legislative priority of Tribal leaders 

to amend Title IV. In the last ten years, I have testified several times before this 

Committee in support of predecessor bills to S. 919. 2 Some members of Congress 

may be tired of hearing from me on this issue, but our persistence speaks to the 

importance Tribal leadership has placed on amending Title IV with respect to empowering Tribal governance to manage limited federal resources to benefit Tribal 

citizens. 

S. 919 reflects over ten years of discussions, drafting, negotiation, and redrafting. 

Particularly in the past two years, Tribal representatives, along with agency and 

Congressional staff, have worked hard to come up with a bill that everyone can support. The time has come to pass this legislation, which would significantly advance 

Congress’s policy of promoting Tribal Self-Governance for American Indian and 

Alaska Native Tribal governments. 

Overview of S. 919

The proposed bill will bring Title IV into line with Title V, creating administrative 

efficiencies for Tribes while also importing the beneficial provisions of Title V currently missing in the older Self-Governance statute. Let me quickly summarize a 

few of the key provisions in S. 919. To address problems in the DOI’s implementation of the Tribal Self-Governance program, S. 919 would, among other things:

• conform Title IV to Title V in order to create consistency and administrative 

efficiencies for Tribes now operating under two compacting regimes;

• establish a clear ‘‘final offer’’ process and timelines for situations when DOI and 

the Tribe are unable to agree on particular terms of a compact or funding agreement, or when DOI delays approval unreasonably;

• clarify and limit the reasons for which the agency may decline to enter a proposed agreement;

• protect Tribes from DOI attempts to impose unauthorized terms in compacts or 

funding agreements;

• provide a clear avenue of appeal and burden of proof for Tribes to challenge adverse agency decisions;

• clarify Tribal and federal oversight roles in construction to ensure fiscal prudence and public safety;

• leave unchanged the discretionary authority to compact non-BIA programs 

within DOI; and

22

• make important amendments to Title I, the self-determination contracting law, 

such as clarifying reporting requirements, rules of interpretation, and applicability of certain Title I provisions to Title IV agreements.

There is ample precedent for most of S. 919 in Title V, which has worked very 

well in the context of health care services and served as the model for this legislation. Tribes have already conceded on very significant key issues-for example, removing provisions on mandatory compacting of non-BIA programs. The fundamental 

principles guiding S. 919 are all sound, as proven by the success of Title V over the 

last decade. 

Conclusion 

The Title IV amendments embodied in S. 919 significantly advance the U.S. policy 

of Tribal Self-Governance. These amendments would cost nothing; indeed, they 

would promote the efficient use of federal funds and improve services to Tribal communities across the nation. The legislation enjoys broad support among Tribes and 

their friends in Congress and Interior. S. 919 is the product of almost 14 years of 

experience, discussion, and compromise. Now is the time for this Committee, and 

Congress as a whole, to push the bill forward so we can build on the impressive 

success of the past and further Tribal Self-Governance, in partnership with the 

United States, to improve the lives of our Tribal citizens. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share our views on this important legislative 

initiative for our Tribe and Indian Country.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, and thanks again for traveling all 

this way. Now we will hear from Chairman Trahan. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD TRAHAN, CHAIRMAN, 

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

Mr. TRAHAN. Thank you. I will read my statement out here, so 

it is my testimony, so bear with me if you would, please. 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Senator Tester and Committee members. My name is Ron Trahan. I am serving as the 

newly elected Tribal Chairman of the Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

of Montana. 

I also want to thank you personally, Chairwoman Cantwell, for 

the time that you spent with us on the Flathead Indian Reservation back in September, when you were visiting with Senator Tester. 

I will keep my remarks brief, since you have my written testimony. 

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes support S. 919, as 

well as the proposed changes to the bill under Committee consideration. As discussed in my written testimony, my tribe has a long 

history with self-governance contracting. Our late chairman, Ricky 

Pablo, was a tireless advocate for the adoption of self-governance 

laws. It does my heart good to report our tribes have thrived under 

the laws we helped enact. 

Ricky and former Chairman of the Committee, Senator Inouye, 

were great partners. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them and 

also former Vice Chair McCain and the many other tribal and Congressional leaders who turned self-governance into reality. Due in 

part to our extensive contracting activities and in part to our commercial activities by tribes, our tribe is the largest employer in 

northwest Montana and one of the largest in western Montana. 

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai government alone has over 

1,000 full-time employees. Currently the tribal government annually administers approximately $25 million in self-governance 

23

funds, $150 million in contracts and grants and $45 million in tribal revenue. 

A repot funded by the State of Montana several years ago 

showed that the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes contributed $317 million to the Montana economy annually. Thanks in 

part to self-governance policies, we are a key player in building our 

reservation’s and regional economies. 

As with our prior testimony on this legislation in past Congresses, I would like to update you on our self-governance efforts 

at the National Bison Range and Complex. I refer to the complex 

not just the National Bison Range, because the complex includes 

not only the bison range but two additional wild refuges that are 

located on tribally owned land, which is the Ninepipe and Pablo 

National Refuge. 

As you may know, we have been working for almost 20 years to 

secure a stable funding agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for the programs at the Bison Range complex. In 2008, our 

tribe signed an agreement with the service that allowed them to 

have a meaningful role in the operations of the bison range. That 

signing ceremony at the Interior Department was attended by Senator Baucus, Senator Tester and Secretary Kempthorne, among 

others. 

Over the next two years, that parties were very satisfied with the 

partnership. The agreement was challenged in Federal court by a 

group who opposed the tribal presence at the Bison range. The 

court rescinded the agreement on procedural grounds under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. We have been trying ever since 

to deal with the technicalities and return to the Bison Range. My 

written testimony gives a more detailed overview of the most recent history. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently working on an environmental assessment of our new draft agreement. Yesterday we 

met and discussed our efforts with Dan Ashe, the Director of Fish 

and Wildlife Service. He assured me that the service wants to return to the productive partnership they had with us at the Bison 

Range and Complex. The partnership success we had with the 

Bison Rang is one reason why groups like the National Wildlife 

Federation supports the tribe’s return under a new self-governance 

agreement. 

While we are frustrated by the amount of time it is taking for 

us to return to the bison range, it is our hope that the partnership 

we have built with the services at both field and policy maker levels will continue, and that this will happen sooner rather than 

later. We have exercised great patience over the last 20 years, but 

it simply should not take this long. 

Our bison range partnership will once again benefit the Service, 

the tribes and the communities, making the self-governance agreement in everyone’s best interest. We appreciate the support that 

this Committee and others in Congress have shown for our efforts. 

In concluding my remarks, the tribes support S. 919. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. I also extend a personal invitation to the Chairwoman, Vice Chairman and 

all members of this Committee to visit the beautiful Flathead InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:29 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 088302 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\88302.TXT JACK
24

dian Reservation so we can share with you more of what we do and 

who we are. 

At this time I would, along with my staff, happily try to answer 

any questions that you have. And again, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD TRAHAN, CHAIRMAN,CONFEDERATED SALISH

AND KOOTENAI TRIBES

Greetings Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, Senator Tester and 

Committee members. My name is Ron Trahan and I serve as the Chairman of the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (‘‘CSKT’’ or ‘‘Tribes’’). 

On behalf of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, I thank you for the 

opportunity to provide our views on S. 919, including proposed revisions to the bill 

that are under Committee consideration. CSKT supports the legislation. 

This legislation, which would amend the Tribal Self-Governance Act’s Interior Department provisions, found in Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), has a long history. Ten years ago, in 2004, one of 

my predecessors, Chairman D. Fred Matt, testified before this Committee on an earlier version of S. 919 (S.1715). Seven years ago, in 2007, another of my predecessors, 

James Steele, Jr., also testified here on draft legislation to amend the Tribal SelfGovernance Act. 

The success and resilience of the Tribal Self-Governance Act, and Self-Governance 

tribes, is unquestioned. The record of success built by Self-Governance tribes is a 

testament to the foresight and wisdom of tribal and congressional leaders. The late 

CSKT Chairman Michael (‘‘Mickey’’) T. Pablo, had fiercely fought for enactment of 

Tribal Self-Governance legislation and policies. As we have stated before, the record 

built by CSKT, and Indian country, in administering federal programs would make 

Mickey proud. Mickey was instrumental in CSKT becoming one of the first ten 

tribes in the country to participate in the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration 

Project in the late 1980’s, and he was a key player in the subsequent permanent 

establishment of Tribal Self-Governance as federal policy. 

I would also like to acknowledge the essential contributions of this Committee, 

and its leadership under former Co-Chairmen Daniel K. Inouye and John McCain, 

in establishing Tribal Self-Governance as permanent federal policy. The manner in 

which Congress worked with tribal leaders to develop, test, and then permanently 

enact the Tribal Self-Governance paradigm is an outstanding model for how policy 

should be formulated. 

CSKT has long asserted that ISDEAA and its 1994 amendments, known as the 

Tribal Self-Governance Act (Title IV of ISDEAA), have been two of the most important and successful pieces of federal Indian legislation in history. They are a logical 

progression from the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which first set the stage 

under federal law for tribal governments to once again determine our own affairs, 

protect our own communities, and provide for our own people in concert with our 

respective cultures and traditions—something we have done since time immemorial. 

Fully implementing Tribal Self-Governance is a pivotal step in realizing the federal 

policy of Indian Self-Determination that was ushered in almost forty years ago. 

CSKT’s Self-Governance Background 

General Background 

CSKT has been one of the most active of the many Self-Governance tribes and, 

as mentioned above, is one of the original ten Self-Governance tribes. We have 

found the system of Self-Governance contracting, through compacts and annual 

funding agreements (AFA’s), to be highly effective in: (1) increasing the efficiency 

and integrity of federal services to tribes and tribal members; (2) increasing tribal 

autonomy and self-sufficiency; (3) strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and tribal governments; and (4) developing our 

Tribal economy. All of these are among the principal objectives identified by Congress in its policy rationale for ISDEAA:

[T]he United States is committed to supporting and assisting Indian tribes in 

the development of strong and stable tribal governments, capable of administering quality programs and developing the economies of their respective communities.

25 U.S.C. § 450a(b)

As Congress later stated in enacting the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994:

25

1 ‘‘Monetary Contributions of Reservations to the State of Montana’’, prepared by Eleanor 

YellowRobe, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana (submitted to 

State Tribal Economic Development Commission, Montana Department of Commerce—November 2007) pp. 1, 9–10. 

The Tribal right of self-government flows from the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes and nations[. . . .] It is the policy of the Tribal Self-Governance Act 

to permanently establish and implement self-governance... [t]o permit each 

Tribe to choose the extent of its participation in self-governance.

25 C.F.R. § 1000.4(a)(1), (b)(2)

Currently, the CSKT Tribal government annually administers approximately: $25 

million in Self-Governance funds; $150 million in contracts and grants; and $44 million in Tribal revenue. Our government alone has 1,000 full-time employees. We are 

the largest employer on the Flathead Reservation, the largest employer in northwestern Montana, and we contribute over $30 million in payroll and over $50 million in purchasing to the local economy. A report funded by the State of Montana 

several years ago showed that CSKT contributed $317 million to the Montana economy annually. 1 It is important to remember, however, that the Indian unemployment rate on our Reservation is still much higher than that of the general area population. This is an indicator that we have a long way to go in building our Tribal 

and Reservation economies. To this end, the Tribal Self-Governance Act remains a 

vital tool for us. 

The following is a list of just several examples of CSKT’s successes in administering programs through ISDEAA and Self-Governance:

• In 1986, we signed a contract to take over control and management of the electrical utility on our reservation, then known as the Electrical Division of the 

Flathead Indian Irrigation Project. We renamed it Mission Valley Power (MVP). 

This utility serves every home and business on the reservation, Indians and 

non-Indians alike. It also provides power to the National Bison Range. It is considered one of the best-run utilities in the state of Montana. Since the Tribes 

took over, MVP has replaced and updated much of the utility’s infrastructure 

yet managed to retain some of the lowest rates in the region. MVP has been 

638-contracted and has not been included in subsequent Self-Governance agreements due to the prohibition found in 25 U.S.C. § 458cc(b)(4)(C). CSKT supports 

S. 919’s deletion of this prohibition.

• Since 1996, CSKT has contracted the operation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ 

(BIA) Land Title Recording Office (LTRO) for the Flathead Indian Reservation. 

We are aware of only a few other tribes that contract or compact the LTRO program in its entirety. Through Tribal control, we have: greatly decreased waiting 

time for requested documents; more nimbly adjusted priorities to respond to different needs regarding appraisals, mortgages, leases, etc.; and increased budget 

efficiencies for a program that is severely underfunded by the federal government. Tribal operation of LTRO functions has also been a key factor in CSKT’s 

record of proactive land acquisitions and reduction of land fractionation through 

Tribal acquisition of fractionated interests.

• In 1989, CSKT contracted the BIA’s Safety of Dams (SOD) program. One of the 

main objectives of this program is to eliminate or remediate structural and/or 

safety concerns at 17 locations on the Flathead Indian Reservation as identified 

by the Department of Interior National Dams—Technical Priority Rating listing. CSKT’s SOD Program provides investigations, designs and SOD modifications to resolve the concerns of the dams on the list. The Tribes’ SOD Program 

has been extremely successful and, under our administration, Reservation dams 

have been modified at a cost significantly lower than originally estimated by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. Past examples include completion of Black Lake Dam 

in November 1992 at a savings of approximately $1.3 million below Bureau of 

Reclamation estimates. The Pablo Dam Modification Project was completed in 

February 1994 at a savings of nearly $140,000. 

• In fiscal years 1997 and 1998 respectively, CSKT began compacting for administration of the Individual Indian Monies (IIM) program for the Flathead Reservation. As of the January 23, 2013 Federal Register listing of Tribal Self-Governance agreements with non-BIA agencies, CSKT is the only tribe that currently 

has such an agreement with the Office of Special Trustee (OST) for these functions. 

26

2 Act of May 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 269, at Section 5(b). 

3Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Blue Goose Alliance. 

4May 15, 2007 letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne from House Natural Resources 

Committee Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Minority Member Don Young, p. 2 (copy attached to this testimony).

National Bison Range Complex 

With respect to non-BIA programs, the Interior Department has not established 

a very encouraging record regarding Tribal Self-Governance agreements. As this 

Committee is well aware, for almost twenty years CSKT has been working to secure 

a stable funding agreement with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for programs at the National Bison Range Complex (NBRC), which is almost entirely located within the Flathead Indian Reservation. The NBRC includes two ancillary National Wildlife Refuges that are located on Tribally-owned land in the center of the 

Reservation (the Ninepipe and Pablo Refuges). 

While the effort has been unnecessarily expensive, frustrating and resource-intensive, it is worth the fight. In addition to the National Bison Range’s physical location in the center of our Reservation, the NBRC’s bison herd has its origins with 

the bison herd started and grown by Tribal members in the late 1800’s and early 

1900’s, when bison were threatened with extinction. The NBRC’s Ninepipe and 

Pablo Refuges are the result of Tribal requests in the 1910’s and 1920’s for the federal government to put the areas around two irrigation reservoirs into protected status for bird conservation. After several years, the United States responded by 

issuing two Executive Orders designating the areas as Refuges. In 1948, Congress 

acquired a perpetual easement from CSKT for such Refuge uses at Ninepipe and 

Pablo, while also recognizing the Tribes’ reserved rights on the properties. 2 Collectively, the National Bison Range and the Ninepipe and Pablo Refuges occupy a 

unique place within our Reservation, our history, our culture, and our hearts. 

As this Committee is aware, the CSKT has executed two multi-year AFA’s with 

FWS for programs at the NBRC. The first AFA was signed in 2004, and the second 

was signed in 2008 at a Washington, D.C. ceremony attended by Interior Secretary 

Dirk Kempthorne and Montana Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus. Unfortunately, both of these agreements came to premature ends. 

With the negotiation and implementation of the 2008 AFA for NBRC programs, 

which covered fiscal years 2009–2011, CSKT and FWS built a highly constructive 

relationship both on the ground and at the policy-maker level. That relationship was 

reflected in many ways, including: positive status reports; successful annual bison 

round-ups; positive visitor feedback; and increased general communication and coordination between federal and tribal staffs. 

Unfortunately, two non-governmental organizations 3 who have consistently opposed the federal-tribal partnership, challenged the agreement in a federal court action, stating that it violated a number of federal statutes such as the Tribal SelfGovernance Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. The 

court did not rule on any of those substantive claims, but it did find that FWS failed 

to properly explain its invocation of a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act when it approved the AFA, so the court rescinded the agreement on the basis of that procedural violation. The court decision was handed down 

in September 2010. In the three and a half years since that decision, CSKT has negotiated a new draft agreement with FWS and the agency then began preparing an 

Environmental Assessment for the draft agreement. It is still in the process of preparing that Assessment. 

CSKT is pleased to have a wide pool of support for an NBRC Self-Governance 

agreement, including from conservation groups such as the National Wildlife Federation (see attached letter from NWF submitted in response to FWS’ 2012 request 

for scoping comments regarding the Environmental Assessment). As stated by thenChairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, Congressmen Nick Rahall and Don Young:

Working with Tribal governments... under the authorization of the Tribal 

Self-Governance Act should not be viewed any differently than partnering with 

State governments especially in this instance where the tribe owns the land on 

which the ancillary facilities of the NBRC National Bison Range Complex [sic] 

are located. 4

While we have been very frustrated with the length of time that this process is 

taking, we are hopeful that the improved relationship between CSKT and FWS will 

result in a satisfactory agreement that will return CSKT staff to the National Bison 

Range soon so we can continue what was widely-acknowledged to be an effective 

partnership. As the New York Times said in a September 3, 2003 editorial addressVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:29 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 088302 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\88302.TXT JACK
27

ing the Bison Range partnering efforts, ‘‘if the Salish and Kootenai can reach an 

agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, something will not have been taken 

from the public. Something will have been added to it.’’ (see copy of editorial below).

To this end, I would like to extend the CSKT Tribal Council’s sincere appreciation 

for our friends in Congress who have long supported a Self-Governance partnership 

at the NBRC. 

Provisions of S. 919

As mentioned at the outset of this testimony, CSKT supports S. 919, including 

the proposed revision currently under the Committee’s consideration. Making Titles 

IV and V of ISDEAA (Interior Self-Governance and Indian Health Service Self-Governance, respectively) more consistent has long been a goal for Self-Governance 

tribes. CSKT agrees with S. 919’s approach of leaving intact much of the existing 

statute, while amending some of the current provisions and adding new ones. 

CSKT greatly appreciates the inclusion in S. 919 of specific recognition that 50 

percent of costs incurred by a tribe’s governing body are reasonable and allowable 

for purposes of contract support cost determinations. Including this provision in the 

statute would bring an end to past uncertainties as to whether the federal government would continue this past practice. This has a significant impact on the budget 

of CSKT and many other tribes. [§ 104 of S. 919, as introduced] 

CSKT particularly supports S. 919’s definition for the term ‘‘inherent Federal 

function’’. While the term is already so defined in Title V, having the definition specifically included for Interior programs is a positive step towards eliminating the 

confusion over this term during field-level negotiations. [§ 201(a)(‘‘401(6)’’) of S. 919, 

as introduced] 

As the only tribe currently with a Self-Governance agreement with the OST, we 

also support S. 919’s explicit incorporation of the OST with respect to mandatory 

Self-Governance agreements. [§ 201(c)(1)(‘‘(a)(2)’’] 

CSKT appreciates S. 919’s inclusion of specific authority for multi-year funding 

agreements, as this is an issue for which we have encountered some resistance from 

federal agencies in the past. We have been able to resolve the disagreements successfully, but statutory clarification will prevent needless disagreements on the 

issue in the future. [§ 201(c)(1)(‘‘(p)(4)’’] 

CSKT strongly supports the statutory clarification of tribal ability to carry-over 

funding. This is also an area in which we have had disagreements with federal 

agencies and we welcome the clarification. [§ 201(d)(‘‘408(k)’’] 


129a4.eps
28

5 132 S.Ct. 2181 (2012). 

With respect to contract support funding, it is important that S. 919 retains the 

existing statutory language mandating funding for contract support costs (25 U.S.C. 

§ 458cc(g)(3)). Payment of contract support costs is a prerequisite for realizing the 

full potential of Tribal Self-Governance objectives. Stronger efforts to secure adequate appropriations for this area are badly needed. In our testimony on prior 

versions of this legislation, CSKT has repeatedly raised this issue. We have consistently maintained that Congress did not intend for Self-Determination or Self-Governance contracting to be money-losing propositions, yet that is what they have become as long as the federal government refuses to pay tribes what they are due 

under the law for administration of the programs. Since our last testimony regarding this legislation, the Supreme Court has confirmed, in its Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter opinion, 5 that the Federal Government is legally obligated to fully pay 

these costs. We were very disappointed in the Obama Administration’s effort to cap 

contract support cost payments for fiscal year 2014, thereby preventing tribes from 

pursuing legal claims for full payment. CSKT very much appreciates Congress’ rejection of that approach in the FY14 budget, and we appreciate the leadership of 

a number of Senators on this Committee in advocating for tribes on this issue. 

CSKT supports S. 919’s approach of maintaining the existing statutory authority 

for contracting Interior programs, outside of the BIA, that are of geographic, historical or cultural significance to tribes. It is through the lens of our experiences involving the NBRC that we evaluate the non-BIA provisions of S. 919. The legislation 

would leave untouched the statutory authority for NBRC contracting, found at 25 

U.S.C. § 458cc(c). CSKT supports this since we have negotiated multiple agreements 

under this authority and do not want to see it diminished or impaired in any way. 

Section 202 of S. 919, both as introduced and in the Committee’s proposed amended 

version, further clarifies that nothing in this legislation would modify this aspect 

of non-BIA contracting authority. CSKT would strongly oppose any changes or 

amendments to non-BIA contracting authority that could be used by opponents of 

tribal contracting to further hamper or prevent Self-Governance partnerships such 

as those we have built at the NBRC. 

CSKT believes more should be done to encourage, rather than discourage, these 

partnerships. The United States is rapidly falling far behind countries such as Canada and Australia when it comes to federal-tribal partnerships in the management 

of protected areas such as refuges and parks. CSKT believes that Tribal Self-Governance policies and agreements have been, and can be, strong vehicles for constructive collaboration between the United States and Indian tribes. 

Two areas of continuing concern for CSKT which S. 919 does not currently address include the following:

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) coverage. Presently, liability coverage for tribal 

contractors, including FTCA coverage, is addressed in Title I of ISDEAA at 25 

U.S.C. § 450f(c). In past AFA negotiations, CSKT has expended a disproportionate amount of time and energy over the issue of whether FTCA coverage 

existed for tribal volunteers who perform work for a contracted federal program. 

CSKT has long maintained that tribal volunteers performing federal program 

work should enjoy the same FTCA coverage as federal volunteers performing 

such work. Unfortunately, we have not resolved this issue and, as a result, the 

BIA has agreed to purchase liability insurance to cover Tribal volunteers under 

our last two NBRC AFA’s. While we have found agreement with our position 

from Interior solicitor offices, we understand that opposition emanates from the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We are generally concerned with what seems 

to be an increasing practice by the DOJ to narrowly interpret FTCA coverage 

in circumstances involving tribal contractors, as well as in other situations. This 

unfortunately has had negative impacts on CSKT’s ability to recruit volunteers 

for contracted programs and/or explain to existing or prospective volunteers the 

scope of their liability coverage. In plain terms, we believe we have lost potential, and past, volunteers at the NBRC due to this issue. We encourage Committee attention to this ongoing problem.

Full funding of programs. CSKT has been on record with equating the issue of 

full program funding to effective implementation of ISDEAA and Tribal SelfGovernance objectives. Without Congressional commitment to fully funding the 

federal programs being contracted by Self-Governance tribes, we cannot overcome the resource limitations to making the programs as successful as they 

need to be. Dwindling, or stagnant, federal funding results in tribes having to 

supplement federal programs with tribal dollars. This serves as a disincentive 

29

1Missoulian, http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/salish-kootenai-tribes-win-national-conservation-award/articlel0e02a208–9fc2–11e1–9d9d-0019bb2963f4.html. 

to contract under ISDEAA and Tribal Self-Governance. Just a couple of the 

many examples relevant to Title IV contracts include:

• The recently completed third independent assessment and report on the 

status of Indian forests and forestry finds that BIA funding for Indian trust 

forest management is $2.82 per acre—an amount which is only one-third of 

the funding level for the U.S. Forest Service, which is $8.57 per acre.

• Per capita spending on law enforcement in Native American communities 

is roughly 60 percent of the national average.

Similar disparities exist for almost all Indian programs contracted under Title IV. 

While this is an appropriations issue and somewhat of a separate issue from the 

Self-Governance provisions of S. 919, it is materially related to achieving the goals 

of the Act and is thus a proper subject for this Committee’s attention. Congressional 

rectification of this issue would be a solid investment into more effective program 

delivery and better administration of the federal trust responsibility. 

Conclusion 

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are one of many tribes that successfully partner with the federal government under the Tribal Self-Governance rubric. 

Work remains to be done towards: (1) eliminating disincentives and removing barriers to Self-Governance participation; and (2) encouraging non-BIA Self-Governance 

activity. The proposed legislation is a good start towards accomplishing those ends. 

On behalf of CSKT, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and I 

would like to thank this Committee, its Members, and staff, for your support of SelfGovernance. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Attachments

Jeff King, 

Refuge Manager, 

National Bison Range, 

Moiese, MT 59824

RE: SCOPING COMMENTS—NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE INTEREST OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND

KOOTENAI TRIBES TO ENTER INTO AN ANNUAL FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE

U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (‘‘THE SERVICE’’), FOR THE OPERATION AND

MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAMS AT THE NATIONAL BISON RANGE COMPLEX

Dear Mr. King,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments concerning your notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment regarding the Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) with Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) and the National 

Bison Range (NBR). The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is America’s largest 

conservation organization and has over 4 million supporters and 47 state affiliates. 

NWF has a long history of partnering with Native American Tribes to conserve and 

protect wildlife for our children’s future and currently partners with the CSKT on 

numerous wildlife, habitat and environmental issues. 

NWF strongly believes that a partnership between the Service and the CSKT 

should be formalized through a new self-governance AFA that would contract with 

the CSKT to operate eligible refuge programs and perform specific day-to-day activities of the NBR consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act (NWRSAA). NWF has supported this partnership since it was originally proposed in 2004. 

On May 17, 2012, the CSKT’s received NWF’s National Government Conservation 

Achievement Awards for their outstanding commitment to preserving, protecting 

and restoring wildlife and habitat for future generations. 1 The CSKT is unparalleled in their methods, efforts, conservation ethic and follow through to achieve sustainable conservation outcomes. Known throughout the country for their scientific 

and cultural knowledge, their partnerships with other governments and long history 

of conserving, managing and restoring wildlife habitat, the CSKT Division of Fish, 

Wildlife, Conservation and Recreation are more than qualified to partner with the 

Service to manage NBR’s resources. 

As you know, the CSKT’s have a long history of managing wildlife and wild lands 

in partnership with local, state and Federal governments. For example, they have,

30

• Signed a historic landmark agreement in 1990 between the Tribes and the state 

of Montana governing bird hunting and fishing on the Flathead Indian Reservation.

• Successfully managed 97,000 acres of primitive areas.

• Acquired and managed over 11,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat through 

the Tribal Wildlife Management Program.

• Acquired over 4,600 acres of land, including 27 miles of streams and lake habitat to offset impacts to fisheries.

The National Bison Range is an outstanding and important resource for all Americans and the CSKT are outstanding land and wildlife managers that preserve and 

protect wildlife in one of the most important ecosystems in North America. The 

Tribes helped save the bison in the 19th and early 20th centuries and will continue 

to protect the bison and other wildlife species and natural resources on the NBR 

for future generations. 

We believe that this partnership will produce numerous long-term benefits to the 

Tribes, the Service and all Americans. The agreement will utilize the best abilities 

and resources of the Tribes and the Federal Government to manage NBR’s resources 

and better serve the people that utilize the land. This partnership will also facilitate 

the achievement of Departmental and Congressional objectives for both its NWRS 

and Tribal Self-Governance programs. The Tribe is in a strong legal position to participate in the AFA. The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 gives qualified Indian 

tribes the right to request funding agreements to perform activities administered by 

the Department of Interior that are of special geographic, historic or cultural significance to the requesting tribe. It is well known that the NBR has a very high level 

of cultural, historic and geographic significance to the CSKT and all units of the 

NBR under consideration for an AFA are located within the Flathead Reservation. 

Many of the bison that reside on the NBR are descendants from a herd originally 

saved by Tribal members in the late 19th century, and which originated on the reservation. 

We look forward to working with the Service and CSKT on the Environmental Assessment for the AFA. 

Sincerely, 

31

LARRY SCHWEIGER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

National Wildlife Federation.


129a1.eps
32


129a2.eps
33

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Trahan. Again, thanks for 

that invitation. You do represent a beautiful part of our Country, 

so you never know when some of us might show up. 

We are going to wait on questions, we are going to go to Mr. 

Isaac next, and when we have finished with him and Mr. Peercy, 

then we will go to questions. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Isaac? 

STATEMENT OF JERRY ISAAC, PRESIDENT, TANANA CHIEFS 

CONFERENCE 

Mr. ISAAC. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and the rest of the Committee, Senator Murkowski and 

Senator Tester. 

Thank you so much for holding today’s hearing on S. 919. I too 

will read my testimony. As I noted in my written testimony, this 

is likely my last opportunity to testify before Congress on behalf of 

Tanana Chiefs Conference. So today is a very special day for me. 


129a3.eps
34

Thank you to the Committee for inviting me. But more importantly, thank you for all that you have done to help Indian Country 

and that you continue to do to help Indian Country. 

I have witnessed incredible change in the past decades, all for 

the good. Much of it is attributable to the work of this Committee. 

I am here today to support enactment of S. 919, so that the rules 

for compacting with the Department of the Interior will finally be 

consistent with the successful compacting rules that control the Indian Health Services. 

Title 4 and Title 5 are part of one law, the Indian Self-Determination Act. We deal with two agencies, IHS and BIA. But there 

is just one law and there should just be one set of rules to follow. 

In my written testimony I mentioned on good example of how 

self-governance suffers when there are two different sets of rules. 

In the IHS rule, we sometimes have delays with IHS in negotiating 

a new funding agreement on a new funding table. When that happens, thanks to Title 5, our old funding agreement with IHS remains in place. Funding continues, services continue. The old 

agreement stays in place until there is a new agreement. 

But in the BIA world, a negotiation delay means funding stops, 

services stop, the compacting relationship essentially stops. This is 

not just a timing issue. Because of these different rules Interior can 

and in the past Interior has refused to sign a new agreement unless we accept Interior’s demands for unilateral changes in those 

agreements or in the funding tables. That kind of pressure tactic 

is unacceptable. It is contrary to the core principle of tribal selfgovernance and the whole idea of government to government relations. 

I am pleased to say that the current Administration has not 

pressured tribes in this fashion. The new bill will make certain 

that these improvements and current practice will become improvements in the law. But no contracting law alone can address our 

most severe problems. Those include the terrible abuse suffered by 

women in some of our villages. The recent Law and Order Commission report once again put a spotlight on this terrible issue and on 

the barriers that are preventing our local tribal governments from 

doing more to help. 

I am extremely pleased to see that Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich have committed in S. 1474 to repeal Section 910 of the 

Violence Against Women Act. All I would ask is that the Committee consider adding that one provision into this bill. Our women 

are suffering and our tribes lack the tools they need to do something about it. They cannot wait, our women cannot wait. 

So I hope that this is something the Committee can consider adding to S. 919 as this important bill moves forward. It all relates to 

improving the ability of our tribes to maximize tribal self-governance and make the communities safe and healthier for all. 

Before closing, I want to offer a special thanks to the Committee 

for being such a champion on the contract support cost issue. 

Thanks in major part to your two hearings, the 2014 Omnibus Appropriation rejected efforts to convert our self-governance compacts 

into little more than discretionary grants. I thank you. 

But more work remains to be done. All of the past contract support cost claims need to finally be resolved. We have waited too 

35

long, 20 years. This makes no sense. Not when the agencies have 

already told Congress how much they owe. I am confident that 

with your continuing support, these claims can at long last be concluded. 

Thank you for the privilege of appearing today. Thanks to the Indian self-Determination act, our villages are stronger and our futures are brighter. Most importantly, our vision remains unchanged for all tribes, including Alaska tribes, to be vested with 

the power and resources necessary to assure safe, healthy and sustainable communities. I thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Isaac follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY ISAAC, PRESIDENT, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE


129a5.eps
36

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Peercy, welcome. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MICKEY PEERCY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

SELF–GOVERNANCE, CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. PEERCY. Thank you, Senator. I will read some of mine then 

I will talk some of mine. I talk better than I read. I would ask 

Chairman Allen to catch me if I get out of line. They say I don’t 

have a filter, but I know I do. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. You have a clock, for sure. 


129a6.eps
37

Mr. PEERCY. I have a clock, and it is running. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PEERCY. That is what I get I ramble. 

On behalf of Chief Gregory Pyle and the Council at Choctaw Nation, I want to thank you for all your support of this distinguished 

Committee and also for your action on S. 919 as well as the 11 cosponsors. 

Choctaw Nation began in this self-governance journey in 1994, 

1995, respectively, with IHS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It 

is the Chief’s and Council’s responsibility to always look after their 

people and also to do everything possible to guarantee self-sufficiency of the people and the Nation. 

BIA, the Chief would not have me come here if I didn’t say that 

means bossing Indians around. He is confidently saying that. And 

it is an issue. Go with me just a little bit to Ardmore, Oklahoma 

and an Indian family that has an IM account, they have issues 

with money. Refrigerator goes out, so they load up the children, 

they load up the family and they drive up to the agency’s office and 

they go ask the social worker first, then they ask the superintendent of the agency if they can have enough money to buy a 

refrigerator. It is not right. There is nothing right about that in 

terms of the dignity of the Indian family, of any family of anyone. 

It is not acceptable. 

The tribe does everything that it can to build self-sufficiency 

within self-governance, to build the self-sufficiency of the family as 

well as the Nation. So those sorts of indignities don’t happen. S. 

919 makes it a high priority of self-governance tribes in our quest 

to get legislation enacted that will remove many of the administrative and practical barriers that persist and have persisted in Title 

4. 

The current law, as it is, allows for delays and obstruction by the 

DOI which has resulted in frustration for tribes through self-governance implementation process. Instead of operating program 

services, functions and activities in an efficient and productive 

manner as originally intended, and performed under the self-governance demonstration projects, tribes have been subject to 

pushbacks constantly in the system. This cannot work any longer. 

In testimony with Dr. Roubideaux at one time, four or five years 

ago, I wrote in written testimony as well as speaking that the Indian Health Service, we were talking about contract health service. 

I had made the statement that the Indian Health Service didn’t 

have the DNA to do contract health service. It wasn’t personal. It 

is the fact that the management of that program, they weren’t able 

to do it, they weren’t able to get doctors paid on time and they 

didn’t seem to have the willingness to do what it took. Dr. 

Roubideaux still hasn’t forgiven me for that. 

But it is the case here. It is the case when we have Federal people, and I appreciate this Committee and I appreciate Kevin 

Washburn, he is Chickasaw, they live right next door to us, and I 

appreciate the political people, all the secretaries, all the heads 

that are political, I don’t care if it is Republican or Democrat, they 

can’t do it. It is the career people who stop the progress. 

And I will say that, I am probably going to retire in about four 

or five years, but I am going to say that going to my grave, that 

38

there is an inherent thing going on, and I have seen two decades 

of Federal people. So it is not just one decade, it is the next decade. 

I have been doing this since 1985. And there is an inherent need 

to be paternalistic, especially with the Bureau. And until laws are 

set and regulations are set that challenges that and makes it easier 

to go down that road, we are going to be stuck where we are. 

With that, I know I am a little bit over, about five seconds. We 

are humble but proud, we are strong and will continue to grow and 

succeed. But most of all, we believe that we made the right choice 

putting our tribe under self-governance. We need new tools, we 

need new tools to make sure that we are refining the process, 

building upon the initiative and government-to-government relationships so that we can successfully continue this point. S. 919 is 

one of those tools. 

Thank you for your patience. We are here to answer any of those 

hard questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peercy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICKEY PEERCY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SELFGOVERNANCE, CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

On behalf of Chief Gregory Pyle and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, thank you 

Vice-Chairman Barrasso for inviting Choctaw to testify and thank you to the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs for convening this hearing on S. 919. We would also 

like to thank the eleven co-sponsors who by their very actions represent the continued belief in Congress that Self-Governance works! 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is an American Indian Tribe organized pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 26, 1936–49. Stat. 

1967. and is Federally recognized by the United States Government through the 

Secretary of the Interior. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma consists of ten and onehalf counties in the southeastern part of Oklahoma and is bordered on the east by 

the State of Arkansas, on the south by the Red River, on the north by the South 

Canadian, Canadian and Arkansas Rivers, and on the west by a line slightly west 

of Durant that runs north to the South Canadian River. 

We have been operating under a compact of Self-Governance since 1995 in the Indian Health Service/Department of Health and Human Service and since 1996 in 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs/Department of the Interior. The Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma believes that responsibility for achieving self-sufficiency rests with the 

governing body of the Tribe. It is the Tribal Council’s responsibility to assist our 

community in its ability to implement an economic development strategy and to 

plan, organize and direct Tribal resources in a comprehensive manner which results 

in self-sufficiency. The Tribal Council recognizes the need to strengthen the Nation’s 

economy, with primary efforts being focused on the creation of additional job opportunities through promotion and development. By planning and developing its own 

programs and building a strong economic base, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

applies its own fiscal, natural, and human resources to develop self-sufficiency. 

These efforts can only succeed through strong governance, sound economic development and positive social development. 

S. 919 remains a top priority for Self-Governance Tribes in our quest to get legislation enacted that will remove many of the administrative and impractical barriers 

that have persisted with Title IV since 1994. For more than a decade, we have developed and refined proposed amendments to Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93–638, as amended). These amendments 

would achieve consistency between Titles IV and V of the Act and address problems 

which affect the ability of Self-Governance Tribes to better serve our citizens. The 

Choctaw Nation, along with other Self-Governance Tribal leaders, have worked tirelessly with the Administration and Congress on these amendments. We strongly believe it is time to move forward with enactment and we urge this Committee to support and advance S. 919. 

Since we began this effort, many Tribal leaders have testified before the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA) regarding on-going problems implementing 

Self-Governance in DOI. These problems, ranging from inadequate funding levels to 

bureaucratic recalcitrance, have caused increased participation by new Tribes in 

39

1 National Academy of Public Administrators Report, Study of Management and Administration, 1999. 2 Bronner Report, A New Day for Indian Affairs, March 2012. 3GAO–13–342T, February 27, 3013. 

Tribal Self-Governance to lessen considerably; which is unfortunate since Self-Governance has proven to dramatically improve the efficiency, accountability and effectiveness of programs and services for many Tribes and their citizens. 

The current law allows for delays and obstruction by the DOI which has resulted 

in frustration for Tribes throughout the Self-Governance implementation process. 

Instead of operating programs, services, functions and activities in an efficient and 

productive manner as originally intended and performed under the Self-Governance 

Demonstration Project, Tribes have been subjected to ‘‘push back’’ and recalcitrance 

from the DOI to fully implement the full spirit of the Act. This was spearheaded 

by the 1996 Title IV negotiated rulemaking process which failed and left the Tribes 

with a sense of urgency to remedy the ills that were created by the promulgation 

of the rules and contrary to the sense of Congress in enacting the legislation. 

All but a very few S. 919 provisions were negotiated and agreed to by Tribal and 

Federal representatives. The vast majority of the proposed amendments are not new 

or radical ideas—many have been adapted from the Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) version of Self-Governance, codified as Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA). 

In 2000, Congress enacted Title V which permanently authorized Self-Governance 

in the Indian Health Service (IHS), within DHHS. Many of the improvements and 

Tribal authority reflected in Title V remain absent from Title IV Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) program administration. Consequently, many Self-Governance Tribes 

are forced to operate under two separate administrative requirements, one for IHS 

and one for BIA. The proposed bill will bring Title IV into line with Title V. 

The lack of administrative efficiencies under Title IV—has been costly for Tribes 

in terms of time, money and loss of opportunities to strengthen Tribal infrastructures and develop competitive reservation economies. The IHS Title V amendments 

provide for the timely distribution of funding and administrative safeguards for 

Tribes aligning the implementation of executive branch regulatory authority with 

the congressional intent of the ISDEAA. Like the Title V amendments, S. 919 intends to clarify and expand the provisions of ISDEAA and streamline efficiencies 

and administrative provisions of the Act. 

There have been many studies and reports performed to evaluate BIA management, organizational structure and administration, as well as to identify and recommend remedies to improve quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, organization, 

functionality and performance. 

The 1999 National Academy of Public Administrators (NAPA) Report, 1 stated 

‘‘. . . without major management and organizational reforms, the BIA will be unable both to fully meet its responsibilities to the 1.4 million American Indians and 

Alaska Natives it serves and to operate an effective and efficient agency. BIA does 

not have the capacity to effectively perform basic Federal functions of accounting, 

property management, human resources management, procurement, and information resources management. Further complicating matters at the BIA is the fact 

that staff do not receive adequate training.’’ The implementation of the recommendations in the NAPA Report commenced in 2004. 

In 2011, the Bronner Group 2 was engaged to perform a multi-phase evaluation 

relating to the administrative support structure of the BIA which included evaluating the NAPA Report. For purposes of the Bronner Report, the term ‘‘support 

functions’’ included accounting/finance, budget, acquisitions/contracting, property 

management, safety management, human resources, information technology, as well 

as engineering and facilities management. In March 2012 the Bronner Report was 

released and the reorganization of Indian Affairs was launched much to the chagrin 

of the Tribes. 

In February 2013 the Government Accountability Office prepared a study on Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to Improve Indian Education 3 which 

identified challenges within the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Assistant 

Secretary—Indian Affairs (IA), such as fragmented administrative structures and 

frequent turnover in leadership. 

I reference these reports to emphasize the critical need for streamlining the administrative process for Self-Governance Tribes as identified in S. 919 that will 

allow Self-Governance Tribes to maximize their capability to efficiently and effectively implement Self-Governance at the reservation level. It is unfair to expect that 

excellence can be achieved by the Tribes when there is such a lack of administrative, program and operational structure in DOI. Removing these barriers will allow 

40

Self-Governance Tribes the opportunity to succeed where the government is failing 

them. 

Our experience in Self-Governance has allowed us to determine the best mechanisms for delivering financial resources and decisionmaking on our homelands. We 

were provided the funding to begin to plan for another type of reform to Self-Determination contracting and we have proven that we made a wise choice with Self-Governance. We made substantial progress under the Demonstration Project and we 

continue to advance our Tribally-driven initiative to quantum leaps today. In DOI, 

Self-Goverance has grown to include 260 Federally-recognized Tribes; and, in IHS 

there are 340 Self-Governance Tribes. 

We are humble but proud; we are strong and will continue to grow and succeed; 

but most of all, we believe that we made the right choice for our Tribe under SelfGovernance. We need new tools to make sure we are refining the process, building 

upon the initiative and the government-to-government relationship so that we can 

successfully continue along this path. 

Today, S. 919 is that tool! 

Thank you.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Again, I appreciate all of you 

being here and your testimony. My own personal beliefs are that 

we live in a flat world. That just means with technology and information, you have to drive it down to the level of expertise where 

people see what the problems are, and empower them to deal with 

them. The more hierarchical you are, the more you are going to 

hold people back. 

So to me, self-governance makes total sense, and the progress 

that has been made by self-governing tribes, as I mentioned earlier, 

Alaska Native Medical Center is a great example of a shining institution that has dealt with a lot of health care problems very adequately, juxtaposed to an IHS delivery system, which can be definitely not innovating at the level that they are innovating. 

So anyway, I wanted to ask, I am going to start with you, Mr. 

Isaac. You say the Administration is, one of the questions I have 

is about the Department of Interior’s refusal to enter into agreements unless the tribe agrees to new terms. You said that this Administration has not engaged in that behavior, which I am happy 

to hear, but I would like to know for the record, what were the Department’s justifications for asking for long-time self-governance 

tribes to agree to new terms before continuing existing programs? 

Mr. ISAAC. I would like to have my staff attorney answer that. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Or he can answer that in writing. 

Mr. Isaac, I also had a question for you as it relates to the appraisal process. This is one of the things that your self-governance 

efforts took over that otherwise would have been done by the Office 

of Trustee, is that correct? 

Mr. ISAAC. Beg pardon? 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The Tanana Chiefs Conference self-governance compact with the Department included real estate appraisals. 

So you would, these would otherwise be done by the Special Trustee. So in doing these real estate appraisals, which is a big issue 

for the Committee in general, it seems that you were able to manage that within your own community and then had some success 

on that. Is that correct? 

Mr. ISAAC. Yes. We were one of the consortia that early on took 

on the self-governance compacting. And in my opinion self-governance allows tribes to be self-reliant. And it not only stop there with 

contracting BIA programs that include realty, it also should strongly consider the inclusion of National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

41

Management, any and all Department of the Interior bureau responsibilities I think should be subject to contracting by local 

tribes. 

I am confident to say that we have faced extraordinary circumstances that we prevailed upon and that if any contract survived being underfunded with contract support costs, in the past, 

I am sure that that group of people would be the ones that I would 

award contracts to. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. So do you see how you improved the management of those, because you were doing the appraisals or overseeing 

the real estate appraisals? Do you think that enabled more results 

as it related to settlements? 

Mr. ISAAC. Yes. When we are dealing with realty issues, we are 

more successful at it in that we close out cases, pending files and 

this stuff more rapidly than it had been in the past. Realty is something that carries trust responsibility along with it, and no doubt 

it is the Federal trust responsibility that is transferred to the consortia, TCC. And we honor that, we do the best we can to be more 

prompt and more effective in the delivery of that service. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would just say, on the land buyback issue, and I know the Department probably wants to do it, but I really think we can get 

more bang for the buck contracting that out to the local level, you 

guys know what the land is worth, you know much more about the 

landscape if you are Salish living in Montana than somebody back 

here. 

Now if I was going to say, I am not sure I would want the Salish 

to do the contract for the Oklahoma tribe. But you guys ought to 

do your own. 

Anyway, that is off topic here for a bit, but maybe not. 

Mr. Allen, I think that just about everybody on this Committee 

agrees that self-governance is a positive thing, and it is undeniable 

that Indian Country has had some difficulty, and reasonably so in 

certain areas. Could you give me an idea on some areas in which 

you believed increased systematic support from the Federal Government would make a positive impact? 

Mr. ALLEN. Some areas that we have taken over? 

Senator TESTER. Or some areas that maybe haven’t done so well 

that additional help from the Federal Government would help. 

Mr. ALLEN. I think the best way to respond to that question is 

that as the tribes take over programs, A, B and C, it could be a 

natural resources program, law enforcement program, et cetera. So 

as a general observation, our analysis is that we are severely underfunded categorically. And so what we have been doing over the 

years is documenting what that underfunding level is. You can 

take these programs like natural resource management, wouldn’t 

matter whether it was grazing, timber, fisheries, et cetera, you will 

see that the tribe are taking those, the Federal component, and 

then more often than not have added our own resources to supplement in order to get it handled correctly. 

42

Senator TESTER. So a little more funding so you wouldn’t have 

to supplement those with others that should be used in some other 

program? 

Mr. ALLEN. Basically, for the most part, tribes are subsidizing 

Federal functions. Categorically. You can go across every one of 

them. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that. 

Chairman Trahan, there have been some recent setbacks in negotiations in the annual funding agreement between your tribe and 

Fish and Wildlife Service over the management of the Bison Range 

Complex. The work has been done, I think it was a positive step 

in the right direction. I would like to hear some more on the National Bison Range Complex and how Indian Country can work 

with the U.S. Government to increase access and appreciation for 

public lands, such as the National Bison Range. 

Mr. TRAHAN. Madam Chair, Senator Tester, I would gladly like 

to revert that to one of my staff. 

Senator TESTER. You can, or you can respond in writing on that. 

That would be fine, that would be better yet. 

In your testimony you talked about, and this is for you again, 

Chairman Trahan, you met with the Fish and Wildlife Service recently, maybe even today. And you continue to work on negotiating 

the annual funding agreement. I think everybody on this Committee wants to see that through, I know you guys want to see it 

through. 

Could CSKT be able to provide the Committee with a progress 

report in early summer, where things stand on the Bison Range 

agreement? 

Mr. TRAHAN. Sure. We would be happy to do that in the early 

spring to late summer. 

Senator TESTER. Whatever is appropriate. 

Mr. TRAHAN. And we would like to also see if the service would 

like to do it jointly. 

Senator TESTER. Say that again? 

Mr. TRAHAN. I said, we would also like to ask the Service if they 

would do a joint briefing with us. 

Senator TESTER. That would be good. 

The Salish Kootenai tribes have some experience with Mission 

Valley Power. As we talked about earlier, I think the work you 

have done there is pretty impressive. I think it provides a model 

of how Indian Country can really work with State and local governments and do it in a way that I think helps everybody. 

Could you tell a little bit more about how operating this public 

utility has affected the tribe’s relationship with the surrounding 

community? 

Mr. TRAHAN. We could do that in writing, but I could give you 

a short version. It has made a lot of difference within the community, because it has brought the communities more, they understand that the tribe is not trying there to hurt them, it is trying 

to be helpful to everyone. That is what it has done, it has kept the 

rates low and everything else in that perspective. 

So it has kind of got rid of the big scare that everybody thought 

there was there with tribes managing something like that. 

43

Senator TESTER. And just out of curiosity, how much of that 

power is used on tribal lands and how much is used off of tribal 

lands? Do you know that off the top of your head? 

Mr. TRAHAN. I sure don’t. 

Senator TESTER. George, do you know that? 

Mr. WATERS. Certainly a larger percentage, Senator, of the users 

are not Indians on the reservation. As I mentioned earlier, what we 

think is fascinating is that there are actually more non-Indians 

that are asking to become part of the project, which I think is a 

testimonial to how well it has been run. 

Senator TESTER. I think it is a testimonial to the success and the 

management of it. 

I want to thank all four of the folks who testified here today. As 

we think of additional questions, we may ask you for some answers 

in writing. Thank you all for being here, thank you for your advocacy of self-determination. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today and for all of the input that you have given. You all 

represent a lot of information as it relates to the history of self-governance and what has been going right. Now we just have to formalize that so we can move more of Indian Country in that direction. 

So we thank you for your testimony. We look forward to moving 

this bill in the near future and seeing if we can get it onto the 

President’s desk after getting it through the House of Representatives. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(45)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I want to thank Senators Cantwell and Barrasso for holding this important hearing today to consider, S. 919, the Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance 

Act. Since this may be the last legislative hearing you two chair together, I also 

want to let the Chair and Vice Chair know how much I appreciate the bipartisan 

working relationship you have forged over the last year, as well as your joint work 

with members of this Committee, and many months of consultation with key stakeholders, to help advance issues of special concern to Native Americans. 

I want to acknowledge and applaud in particular two of your most important legislative collaborations: S. 919, the subject of our legislative hearing today; and, S. 

1352, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, voted 

to be reported out favorably by this Committee several weeks ago. I am an original 

cosponsor and strong supporter of S. 919 and S.1352, major legislative priorities for 

tribal governments and native communities across the nation. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. I will continue to work with 

you, other stakeholders and my colleagues to ensure that Congressional actions are 

guided by the principles of self-determination and self-governance, and the special 

political relationship between the United States and Native Americans remains 

strong. 

Finally, as I may not have another opportunity to address you as Chair, I want 

to take this opportunity to formally thank you Senator Cantwell for your very able 

leadership of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; and, to acknowledge your 

proven commitment to American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. 

I look forward to working with you in the future to help build stronger and more 

self-sufficient native communities, create much needed jobs, and further strengthen 

our national economy. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

I would like to thank Chairwoman Cantwell for her leadership on S. 919, the Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act of 2013. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation. Thank you Chairwoman Cantwell and Vice Chairman 

Barrasso for taking the time to hold a hearing on this legislation. 

I am glad to see my friend Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Kevin 

Washburn, here today. I understand that he will share a message of support from 

the administration. I would like to thank him and his team for working with tribes 

from across the country to reach agreement on the provisions in this bill. 

Self-governance has proved to be a powerful asset to tribal nations. Since the enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1975, 

tribes have shown the great accomplishments that can be made through self-governance. 

Self-governance allows tribes to take control of the programs tribal members depend on, and to better direct the future of their communities. But beyond empowerment, self-governance has direct impact on tribal economies and employment. 

As many have noted, A 2004 GAO report showed that tribes engaged in self-governance had greater gains in employment and per capita income levels from 1990 

to 2000 compared with other tribes. 

S. 919 seeks to improve self-governance contracting through the Department of 

the Interior. I believe this is an important step for tribes and the administration, 

and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill. 

46

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

RONALD TRAHAN

Question 1. Chairman Trahan, there have been some recent setbacks in negotiations in the annual funding agreement between your tribe and Fish and Wildlife 

Service over the management of the Bison Range Complex. The work has been done, 

I think it was a positive step in the right direction. I would like to hear some more 

on the National Bison Range Complex and how Indian Country can work with the 

U.S. Government to increase access and appreciation for public lands, such as the 

National Bison Range. 

Answer. Our FY 2009–11 Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) with the U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service (FWS) for the National Bison Range Complex (NBRC) was rescinded on procedural grounds by a federal district court decision in September 

2010. The court did not find any problems with the AFA; instead, it found that FWS 

had not properly explained its invocation of a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After the court decision, FWS and CSKT 

negotiated a new agreement. Once we had negotiated a new draft AFA, we encouraged FWS to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the action in accordance with NEPA. The Tribal Council continues to fully support the preparation of 

an EA, but we have been frustrated by repeated delays in completing the process. 

Both FWS and CSKT have agreed that we had a very productive partnership at the 

NBRC while the last AFA was in place. It should therefore not take this long for 

us to return to that productive partnership. It is our hope that FWS will not announce any further delays and that this process will be completed this year. 

In response to the second part of Senator Tester’s question, I believe that, if federal agencies were more open to partnering with Indian tribes, the Tribal Self-Governance Act could be a great tool for augmenting federal resources for land management. Tribes can be effective allies in helping raise public awareness about public 

lands, including access to those lands. Tribes can add to public lands visitor experiences by helping to educate people about the lands’ traditional cultural history, uses 

and importance. In short, CSKT believes that, in certain cases, Tribal Self-Governance affords federal agencies unrealized opportunities to further improve public 

lands management.

Question 2. In your testimony you talked about, and this is for you again, Chairman Trahan, you met with the Fish and Wildlife Service recently, maybe even 

today. And you continue to work on negotiating the annual funding agreement. I 

think everybody on this committee wants to see that through, I know you guys want 

to see it through. Could CSKT be able to provide the Committee with a progress 

report in early summer, where things stand on the Bison Range agreement? 

Answer. Sure. We would be happy to do that in the early spring to late summer. 

We expect that a briefing would be in order sometime this spring. Since the hearing, we have contacted the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and officials from its Denver 

Regional Office have indicated they would be happy to provide a joint update at that 

time.

Question 3. The Salish Kootenai tribes have some experience the Mission Valley 

Power. As we talked about earlier, I think the work you have done there is pretty 

impressive. I think it provides a model of how Indian Country can really work with 

State and local governments and do it in a way that I think helps everybody. Could 

you tell a little bit more about how operating this public utility has affected the 

tribe’s relationship with the surrounding community? 

Answer. We could do that in writing, but I could give you a short version. It has 

made a lot of difference within the community, because it has brought the communities more, they understand that the tribe is not trying there to hurt them, it is 

trying to be helpful to everyone. That is what it has done, it has kept the rates low 

and everything else in that perspective. 

So it has kind of got rid of the big scare that everybody thought there was there 

with tribes managing something like that.

Question 3a. And just out of curiosity, how much of that power is used on tribal 

lands and how much is used off of tribal lands? Do you know that off the top of 

your head? 

Answer. Mission Valley Power (MVP) is a federally-owned electrical utility celebrating its 25th year under Tribally-contracted management. CSKT contracts MVP 

operations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA)?. MVP provides electrical power 

to almost the entire Flathead Indian Reservation, which has a population of 28,359 

according to the 2010 census. MVP employs around 80 people, with total revenue 

of $25,876,105 in FY 2012. It should be noted that CSKT does not keep any of that 

47

revenue as profit—the money stays within the federal program. MVP does not keep 

track of the Indian or non-Indian status of its customers, but it currently services 

19,400 electrical meters, serving over 16,500 customers. CSKT Tribal membership 

is currently around 7900 people, with roughly half of that 7900 living on the Reservation. Consequently, and as stated at the hearing, even when taking into account 

the Reservation residents who are members of Indian tribes other than CSKT, MVP 

has more non-Indian customers than Indian customers.

Æ