79–010

Calendar No. 745

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–368

AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RECONCILIATION

PLACE IN FORT PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

AUGUST 25, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000

Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1658]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill

(S. 1658) to authorize the construction of the Reconciliation Place

in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in

the nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

PURPOSES

The purpose of S. 1658, introduced by Senator Daschle on September 29, 1999, and cosponsored by Senator Johnson, are (1) to

promote a better understanding of the history and culture of the

Sioux people, and by doing so, achieve better relations between Indian and non-Indian peoples; (2) to promote economic development

on the reservations; (3) to establish a Sioux Nation Supreme Court

to help increase legal consistency among the reservations, and thus

create a legal environment more conducive to business investment

and to building respect for the law; (4) to establish a training center to train tribal personnel in conflict resolution and alternative

dispute resolution; and, (4) to locate all of these entities at a single

facility to minimize administrative and building costs. To achieve

these purposes, S. 1658 would authorize funds for the construction

of a multipurpose center to be known as ‘‘Reconciliation Place’’ in

Pierre, South Dakota, at which would be located and operated a

Sioux Nation Supreme Court, at which would be located and operVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:35 Aug 29, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR368.XXX pfrm08 PsN: SR368
2

ated a Sioux Nation Supreme Court, a National Native American

Mediation Training Center, a Native American Economic Development Council, and an Historical Archive and Display Center.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

In 1997, the chairmen of all nine South Dakota Sioux tribes

joined in a letter to Senator Daschle seeking assistance for the

Wakpa Sica Historical Society’s efforts to develop plans for construction and development of a ‘‘Reconciliation Place’’ with attending programs in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, on the bank of the Missouri River where, in 1804, leaders of the Teton Sioux Tribes first

met representatives of the United States of America—Meriwether

Lewis and William Clark.

As envisioned by the Historical Society, a non-profit community

of tribal and non-tribal leaders dedicated to forging understanding

between tribal and non-tribal cultures, the focus of the Reconciliation Place would be fostering awareness, learning, understanding,

and professional development in the promotion of reconciliation between non-tribal people—most of U.S. society—and tribal people or

persons with Native American ancestry. It would do so by pursuing

three initiatives. One initiative would be to create a center for tribal cultural history and a Sioux Nations Archives, to display and interpret tribal history, art, and culture for all visitors, to provide a

repository for tribal history and tribal members’ family histories,

and to assist in the return of cultural and spiritual artifacts to

tribes under Federal law. The second initiative would be to establish an interpretative center that would feature the Sioux Nation’s

first encounter with Americans—Lewis and Clark—and the economic history of the Missouri River Valley, with emphasis on contrasting the different economic systems indigenous to the tribes

and to the incoming U.S. citizens, and on illuminating the natural

misunderstanding and conflict that these differences prompted. The

third initiative would be to provide a home for a Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court, which would provide additional professional

guidance and support for existing tribal local and appellate courts

in dealing with increasing caseloads associated with the growth of

tribal commerce, finance, and economic development. This initiative reflects a consensus among Sioux tribal leaders that a supreme

court is key not only to promoting tribal socio-economic well-being,

but also effective tribal government.

The establishment of the Wakapa Sica Historical Society and a

need for reconciliation between tribal and non-tribal peoples is part

of the legacy of the contentious and bitter history of the United

States’ dealings with the Sioux Nation since the time of Lewis and

Clark. That legacy embraces a broad array of economic, social, and

governmental problems, including often tense and uneasy race relations between Indians and non-Indians in South Dakota, characterized by misunderstanding and mistrust, and poor economic conditions on the reservations, characterized by low per capital income

rates and high unemployment rates. To appreciate the need for reconciliation in these circumstances, a brief summary of some of the

more notable events in the United States’ dealings with the Sioux

Nation is necessary.

In 1803, President Jefferson commissioned the Lewis and Clark

expedition to explore the lands acquired through the Louisiana

3

1Treaty with the Teton (Lakota), 1815; 7 Stat. 125.

2See e.g., Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, 1825; 7 Stat. 257.

3Treaty with the Sioux, 1851; 11 Stat 749.

4Treaty with the Sioux, 1868; 15 Stat 635.

5 United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 379–80 (1980. 6 Act of Feb. 28, 1877; 19 Stat. 254.

Purchase. On September 24, 1804, Lewis and Clark anchored their

three riverboats where the Wakpa Sica, or Bad River, flows into

the Missouri River. The next day, half of the party of 44 men landed on the west bank of the Missouri and formally paraded on the

river plain under the flag of the United States. They then joined

Chief Black Buffalo and braves of the Teton Sioux for council in the

chief’s buffalo skin lodge. This was one of the first meetings between representatives of the Sioux tribes and representatives of the

United States.

In 1815, the United States entered into treaties with the Dakota

and Lakota tribes of the Sioux Nation, in which the United States

pledged to protect the tribes.1 In 1825, the United States entered

into treaties of peace, friendship and commerce with the tribes of

the Sioux Nation to promote the fur trade and the safe passage of

American citizens through Sioux Nation territory.2 In 1851, to facilitate trade and reduce intertribal conflict that sometimes threatened safe passage, the United States entered into a treaty with the

Sioux and neighboring Indian tribes, which described their respective aboriginal areas.3

After the Civil War, the United States’ westward expansion led

to conflict with the Sioux Nation, who saw their buffalo herds, and

consequently their economic livelihoods, begin to decline with the

passage of settlers along the Oregon Trail. In 1866, the United

States sought to build a road through Sioux Nation hunting

grounds in the Powder River valley, despite the objections of the

Sioux tribes. Over the next two years, the tribes fought the Powder

River or Red Cloud’s War to protect their hunting grounds. The

war ended with the signing of the Treaty with the Sioux, 1868, in

which the United States set aside lands in South Dakota west of

the Missouri River as the Great Sioux Reservation as a ‘‘permanent

home’’ for the Sioux Nation and delineated tribal hunting grounds

in the Powder River valley.4

In 1874, gold was discovered in the Black Hills of South Dakota,

and a gold rush began. After unsuccessfully attempting to maintain

the reservation boundaries that had been established only six years

before, President Grant’s Administration made repeated offers to

purchase the Black Hills, but the Sioux, to whom the Black Hills

were (and still are) sacred, refused to sell. Late in 1875, the United

States ordered the Sioux to report to Indian agencies along the

Missouri River and in Nebraska, away from the Black Hills.

Though few Sioux actually received notice of the order, the United

States Army was sent to enforce it in the spring of 1876. This led

to the Battles of the Rosebud and the Little Big Horn. After Custer’s defeat at the Little Big Horn, the United States sent more

troops to force the Sioux to report to the Indian agencies. Many

other battles ensued and many Sioux were killed.5 In 1877, Congress enacted legislation taking more than 7.2 million acres of

land, including the Black Hills, from the Sioux Nation.6

In the 1880’s, the United States sought more land from the

Sioux. In an 1889 Agreement, the United States divided the Great

4

7Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 468, 476 (1985).

Sioux Reservation into the Cheyenne River, Crow Creek, Lower

Brule, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Standing Rock Sioux Reservations. Under the General Allotment Act of 1887, the United States

opened up these reservations to non-Indian homesteaders, and set

in motion a process through which Indian ownership of land

throughout the United States was reduced by approximately 100

million acres before the allotment policy was abandoned in 1934.

Through this process non-Indians settled within the boundaries of

Sioux reservations, resulting in checkerboarded land ownership

and further reductions in the tribes’ land base.

Also in the late 1880’s, what became known as the Ghost Dance

religion, which was believed to render its practitioners impervious

to bullets, became popular among Indians on several reservations.

In response to non-Indian alarm over the practice of the Ghost

Dance in large Indian encampments, the U.S. Army was summoned, and in December, 1890, more than 300 Sioux Indians,

mostly unarmed elderly, women and children, were massacred at

Wounded Knee.7 From the Indian perspective, the United States

added insult to injury when the Army subsequently awarded the

Medal of Honor to 17 soldiers for their actions during the massacre.

With enactment of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 827),

Congress authorized the construction of five massive earthen dams

on the Missouri River as part of the Pick-Sloan plan for water development in the Missouri River Basin. The lands affected by construction of these dams and reservoirs were, by and large, Indian

lands. Six Sioux reservations in North and South Dakota and Nebraska lost a combined total of more than 375,000 acres, much of

it prime bottomland of huge economic and cultural significance to

the tribes, to these projects. Entire tribal communities were relocated and their economies crippled or destroyed. Much of the land

taken by the United States for these projects was by condemnation

proceedings later found by the courts to have been unauthorized by

law. Despite the enormous tangible and intangible adverse impacts

suffered by these tribes, compensation for their losses from the

United States was for the most part belated and incommensurate

with the value of the losses.

The accrued physical and psychological impacts resulting from

the abrogation of solemn treaties, war, the taking of the Black

Hills, the breakup, fractionation and reduction of tribal lands via

allotments, the disruption of communities and economies by the

construction of Federal dams and reservoirs, among other events,

continue to contribute to feelings of bitterness and loss among the

people of the Sioux Nation. In turn, these feelings and the attitudes

associated with them tend to aggravate and complicate the tribes’

relationships with the United States and local and state governments as well as relations between individual Indians and non-Indians. This is true despite efforts by the Congress and others to address some of these past wrongs, such as formally apologizing for

the Wounded Knee Massacre and by enacting legislation to provide

additional compensation for the losses suffered from the Pick-Sloan

dam projects. In 1981, after thirty years of arduous litigation in the

Indian Claims Commission, the U.S. Claims Court and the U.S.

5

8 United States v. Sioux Nation, 20 Ct. Cl. at 241 (1975).

Supreme Court, the Sioux Nation obtained an $81 million judgment, including interest, for the loss of the Black Hills. With interest since 1981, that judgment is now worth approximately $500

million; however, the money remains in the U.S. Treasury because

the tribes of the Sioux Nation continue to seek the return of the

Black Hills. About the manner by which the United States obtained the Black Hills, the United States Claims Court observed

that ‘‘A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will

never, in all probability, be found in our history’’.8

From the perspective of the tribes of the Sioux Nation, evidence

of the many adverse consequences of major events in their history,

and the effects of these events on their people’s present-day relations with non-tribal people and entities, are far more pervasive

around their reservations than perhaps anywhere else. Awareness

of this history and perspective were key factors leading to the establishment of the Wakpa Sica Historical Society and to the Society’s efforts to help foster a healing spirit of reconciliation among

the Sioux Nation and other citizens of South Dakota, and to promote a better understanding of Native American history and culture throughout the United States.

With great assistance from the Office of Tribal Justice of the U.S.

Department of Justice, the Wakpa Sica Historical Society has developed detailed plans for a Reconciliation Place, which would be

located on 80 acres of land acquired from private individuals and

public entities. In the course of developing these plans, the project

was expanded to include a Native American Economic Development

Council to provide a continuing source of funds and focus on the

overwhelming need to promote economic development on the reservations. On September 29, 1999, Senator Daschle introduced S.

1658, a bill to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place

in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes.

S. 1658: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Reconciliation Place—As amended and reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs, S. 1658 would authorize the Secretary of

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, to provide a grant of up to

$18,258,441 to the Wakpa Sica Historical Society to construct a facility, known as the Reconciliation Place, to house an Historical Archive and Display Center, the Sioux Nation American Mediation

Training Center, and a Sioux Nation Economic Development Council.

Historical Archive and Display Center—The majority of documents and artifacts pertaining to the history of the Sioux Nation

are kept in government facilities that are scattered across the

United States and are not easily accessible to the public. The Historical Archive and Display Center at Reconciliation Place would

provide a central repository for such documents and artifacts. By

providing easier access to these materials and by displaying and interpreting the history, art, and culture of the Lakota, Nakota, and

Dakota tribes of the Upper Midwest, the Center could enhance the

knowledge and understanding of the history of the Sioux, and promote reconciliation among Indians and non-Indians.

6

Sioux Nation Supreme Court—The bill directs the Attorney General to use available funds to provide technical and financial assistance to the Sioux Nation to develop and operate a Sioux Nation

Tribal Supreme Court.

National Native American Mediation Training Center—In response to a suggestion made in testimony by the Administration’s

witness before the Committee’s hearing on S. 1658, the bill was

amended to include a direction to the Attorney General to use

available funds to provide technical and financial assistance to the

National Native American Mediation Training Center. This center

would address the need for Native American mediators trained in

conflict resolution techniques to address conflicts that arise between Indian tribes and neighboring communities and within tribal

communities themselves throughout Indian country.

Native American Economic Development Council—S. 1658 would

establish a Native American Economic Development Council, which

would be a charitable nonprofit corporation not considered to be an

agency of the United States. The Council would be comprised of

eleven members; one from each South Dakota Sioux Tribe, one

nominated by the Government of South Dakota, and one nominated

by the senior member of the South Dakota congressional delegation. Each member would serve a two-year term.

The council would be authorized to accept private gifts of property and to raise funds from private entities for use as matching

funds for Federal assistance, to provide expertise and technical

support to help Indians establish successful businesses and in obtaining Federal assistance for economic development activities, and

to provide scholarships to Indian students pursuing a business education.

The Council would be subject to annual auditing and reporting

requirements, and the United States would not be liable for any

debts, defaults, acts or omissions of the Council. Finally, S. 1658

authorizes $10 million for five fiscal years, beginning with FY

2000, for the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to the Council to fulfill its purposes.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On September 29, 1999, Senator Daschle introduced S. 1658 and

the bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On May

17, 2000, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S.

1658. Senator Johnson, on behalf of the South Congressional delegation, and witnesses from the Administration, the United Sioux

Tribes of South Dakota Development Corporation, and the Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe testified in strong support of

the bill. The witness from the Wakpa Sica Historical Society submitted letters of support from the current Governor and a former

Governor of South Dakota, the State Bar Association, the State

Chamber of Commerce, the State Retailers Association, the Mayors

of the cities of Ft. Pierre and Pierre, and the County Commissioners of the relevant local counties. On June 21, 2000, the Committee on Indian Affairs adopted an amendment-in-the-nature-of-asubstitute to S. 1658 that includes new provisions providing for the

establishment of the Native American Mediation Training Center

at the Reconciliation Place.

7

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

The Committee on Indian Affairs, in an open business session on

June 21, 2000, adopted an amendment-in-the-nature-of-a-substitute

to S. 1658 by voice vote and ordered the bill, as amended, reported

favorably to the Senate.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Findings

Section 1 sets forth seven Congressional findings.

The first and second findings are that there is a continuing need

for reconciliation between Indians and non-Indians that may be

met partially through the promotion of the understanding of the

history and culture of Sioux Indian tribes.

The third finding is that the establishment of a Sioux Nation

Tribal Supreme Court will promote economic development on reservations of the Sioux Nation and provide investors that contribute

to that development a greater degree of certainty and confidence by

reconciling conflicting tribal laws and strengthening tribal court

systems.

The fourth finding is that the reservations of the Sioux Nation

contain the poorest counties in the United States and lack adequate tools to promote economic development and the creation of

jobs.

The fifth finding is that the establishment of a Native American

Economic Development Council will assist in promoting economic

growth and reducing poverty on reservations of the Sioux Nation

by coordinating economic development efforts, centralizing expertise concerning Federal assistance, and facilitating the raising of

funds from private sources to meet matching requirements under

certain Federal assistance programs.

The sixth finding is that there is a need to enhance and strengthen the capacity of Indian tribal governments and tribal justice systems to address conflicts which impair relationships within Indian

communities and between Indian and non-Indian communities and

individuals.

The seventh finding is that the establishment of the National

Native American Mediation Training Center, with the technical assistance of tribal and Federal agencies, including the Community

Relations Service of the Department of Justice, would enhance and

strengthen the mediation skills that are useful in reducing tensions

and resolving conflicts in Indian communities and between Indian

and non-Indian communities and individuals.

Section 2. Definitions

Section 2 sets forth definitions of the terms ‘‘Indian Tribe’’, ‘‘Secretary’’, and ‘‘Sioux Nation’’.

Title I—Reconciliation Center

Section 101. Reconciliation Center

Subsection (a) requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior,

to establish a reconciliation center, to be known as ‘‘Reconciliation

Place’’.

8

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Interior to take into

trust for the benefit of the Sioux Nation the parcel of land in Stanley County, South Dakota, described as ‘‘The Reconciliation Place

Addition’’, that is owned by the Wakpa Sica Historical Society, Inc.,

for the purpose of establishing and operating The Reconciliation

Place.

Subsection (c) states the purposes of Reconciliation Place to be

(1) to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the history of

Native Americans by displaying and interpreting the history, art,

and culture of Indian tribes for Indians and non-Indians; providing

an accessible repository for the history of Indian tribes and the

family history of members of Indian tribes; (2) to provide for the

interpretation of the encounters between Lewis and Clark and the

Sioux Nation; (3) to house the Sioux Nation Supreme Court; (4) to

house the Native American Economic Development Council; and,

(5) to house the National Native American Mediation Training

Center to train tribal personnel in conflict resolution and alternative dispute resolution.

Subsection (d) requires the Secretary of HUD, after consultation

with the Secretary of the Interior, to offer to award a grant to the

Wakpa Sica Historical Society for the construction of Reconciliation

Place. As a condition to receiving the grant, the Society shall enter

into an agreement with the Secretary of HUD which shall specify

the duties of the Society under this section and arrangements for

the maintenance of Reconciliation Place. This subsection also authorizes to be appropriated to the Department of HUD $18,358,441

to be used for the grant under this section.

Section 102. Sioux Nation Supreme Court and National Native

American Mediation Training Center

Subsection (a) provides that to ensure the development and operation of the Sioux National Tribal Supreme Court and the National

Native American mediation Training Center, the Attorney General

of the United States shall use available funds to provide technical

and financial assistance to the Sioux Nation.

Subsection (b) authorizes to be appropriated such sums as are

necessary to carry out this section.

Title II—Native American Economic Development Council

Section 201. Establishment of Native American Economic Development Council

Subsection (a) provides authority for the establishment of the

Native American Economic Development Council (hereafter ‘‘Council’’) as a charitable, nonprofit corporation that shall not be considered to be an agency or establishment of the United States.

Subsection (b) states the purposes of the council to be (1) to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of property; (2) to use

those gifts as a source of matching funds needed to receive Federal

Assistance; (3) to provide tribal members with the skills and resources necessary for establishing successful businesses; (4) to provide grants and loans to tribal members who are students pursuing

an education in business or a business-related subject; and, (6) to

provide technical assistance to Indian tribes and tribal members in

obtaining federal assistance.

9

Section 202. Board of Directors of the Council

Subsection (a) provides that the Council shall have a governing

Board of Directors (hereinafter ‘‘Board’’) consisting of 11 directors

who shall be citizens of the United States appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Each of the nine directors shall represent one

of the nine reservations of South Dakota and shall be selected from

among nominations submitted by the appropriate Indian tribes.

One director shall be selected from nominations submitted by the

Governor of South Dakota and one director shall be selected from

nominations submitted by the most senior member of the South

Dakota Congressional delegation.

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to appoint the directors of

the Board no later than December 30, 2000, to 2-year terms. A vacancy on the Board shall be filled no later than 60 days after a vacancy occurs, in the same manner as the original appointment, and

no individual may serve more than 3 consecutive terms as a director.

Subsection (c) provides that the Chairman of the Board shall be

elected from its members for a term of 2 years.

Subsection (d) provides that a majority of the members of the

Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

Subsection (e) provides that the board shall meet at the call of

the Chairman at least once a year. If a director misses 3 consecutive regularly schedules meetings, he may be removed by the Secretary and the vacancy filled in accordance with subsection (b).

Subsection (f) provides that members of the board shall serve

without pay, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary travel and subsistence expenses incurred in the performance of Council

duties.

Subsection (g) grants the Board powers to appoint officers, to

adopt a constitution and bylaws consistent with the purposes of the

Council under this Act, and to carry out such other actions as necessary to carry out the Council’s purposes under this Act. Appointment to the Board shall not constitute employment by or holding

of an office of the United States for the purposes of any Federal

law. Officers and employees of the Council may not be appointed

until the Council has sufficient funds to pay them for their service;

shall be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5,

United States code, governing appointments in the competitive

service; and may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to

classification and General Schedule pay rates. The first officer or

employee appointed by the Board shall be the Secretary of the

Board, who shall serve, at the direction of the Board, as its chief

operating officer and be knowledgeable and experienced in matters

relating to economic development and Indian affairs.

Section 203. Powers and Obligations of the Council

Subsection (a) provides that the Council shall have, in addition

to the powers otherwise given it under this Act to carry out this

purposes, the usual powers of a corporation acting as a trustee in

South Dakota, including the power (1) to accept any gift devise or

bequest, absolutely or in trust, of real or personal property of any

income therefrom or other interest therein; (2) to acquire by purchase or exchange any real or personal property or interest therein;

10

(3) to sell, donate, lease, invest, reinvest, retain or otherwise dispose of any property or income therefrom unless otherwise required

by the instrument of transfer; (4) to borrow money and issue bonds,

debentures, or other debt instruments; (5) to sue and be sued, and

complain and defend itself in any court of competent jurisdiction,

except that the directors shall not be personally liable, except for

gross negligence; (6) to enter into contracts or other arrangements

with public agencies and private organizations and persons and to

make such payments as may be necessary to carry out its functions; and, (7) to carry out any action that is necessary and proper

to carry out the purposes of the Council.

Subsection (b) provides that the Council shall (A) have perpetual

succession; (B) may conduct business throughout the several

States, territories, and possessions of the United States and

abroad; (C) shall have its principal offices in South Dakota; and (D)

shall at all times maintain a designated agent authorized to accept

service of process for the Council, service to whom shall be deemed

as service on or notice to the Council.

Subsection (c) provides that the Council shall have an official

seal selected by the Board, which shall be judicially noticed.

Subsection (d) provides that the Council may accept a current or

future interest in a gift, even if that gift is encumbered, restricted,

or subject to beneficial interests of 1 or more private persons.

Section 204. Administrative Services and Support

Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary may provide personnel, facilities, and other administrative services to the Council,

including reimbursement of expenses under section 202, not to exceed then current Federal government per diem rates, for a period

ending not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this

Act.

Subsection (b) permits the Council to reimburse the Secretary for

any administrative service provided under subsection (a), and the

Secretary shall deposit any such reimbursement into the Treasury

to the credit of the appropriations then current and chargeable for

the cost of providing such service. The Secretary is authorized to

continue to provide facilities and necessary support services for

such facilities to the Council after the date specified in subsection

(a) on a space available, reimbursable cost basis.

Section 205. Volunteer Status

Subsection (a) provides that, notwithstanding any other provision

of law, the Secretary may accept, without regard to the civil service

classification laws, rules, or regulations, the services of the Council,

the Board, and the officers and employees of the Board, without

compensation from the Secretary, as volunteers in the performance

of the functions authorized under this Act.

Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to provide for incidental

expenses, including transportation, lodging, and subsistence to the

officers and employees serving as volunteers under subsection (a).

Section 206. Audits, Report Requirements, and Petition of Attorney

General for Equitable Relief.

Subsection (a) provides that the Council shall be subject to auditing and reporting requirements under section 10101 of title 36,

11

United States Code, in the same manner as is a corporation under

part B of that title.

Subsection (b) requires the Council, as soon as practicable after

the end of each fiscal year, to transmit to Congress a report of its

proceedings and activities during such year, including a full and

complete statement of its receipts, expenditures, and investments.

Subsection (c) provides that if the Council engages in, or threatens to engage in, any act, practice, or policy that is inconsistent

with the purposes of the Council under section 201(b), or refuses,

fails, or neglects to discharge its obligations under this Act or

threatens to do so, then the Attorney General of the United States

may petition the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

for such equitable relief as may be necessary or appropriate.

Section 207. United States Release From Liability

This section declares that the United States shall not be liable

for any debts, defaults, acts, or omissions of the Council, and that

the full faith and credit of the United States shall not extend to

any obligation of the Council.

Section 208. Grants to Council; Technical Assistance

Subsection (a) provides that, not less than annually, the Secretary shall award a grant to the Council, to be used to carry out

the purposes specified in section 201(b) in accordance with this section. As a condition of receiving a grant, the secretary of the Board,

with its approval, shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary

that specifies the duties of the Council in carrying out the grant

and the information that is required to be included in the agreement under this section. Each such agreement shall specify that

the Federal share of a grant under this section shall be 80 percent

of the cost of the activities funded under the grant. No such grant

may be made to the council unless the Council has raised an

amount from private persons and State and local government agencies equivalent to the non-Federal share of the grant. Each agreement shall also specify that a reasonable amount of the Federal

funds made available to the Council under such agreement, but not

more than 15 percent of such funds, may be used by the Council

for administrative expenses, including salaries, travel and transportation expenses, and other overhead expenses.

Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary of HUD, the Secretary

of the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Assistant

Secretary for Economic Development of the Department of Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration,

and the Administrator of the Rural Development Administration

shall provide to the Council such technical assistance as may be

necessary for the Council to carry out the purposes specified in section 201(b).

Section 209. Authorization of Appropriations

Subsection (a) authorizes to be appropriated to the Department

of the Interior $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004,

2005, and 2006 to be used in accordance with section 208.

Subsection (b) provides that the amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to any amounts provided

to the Council under any other provision of Federal law.

12

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 1658, as amended, as provided by the

Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.

Hon. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1658, a bill to authorize the

construction of a reconciliation place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota,

and for other purposes.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette

J. Keith.

Sincerely,

STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 1658—A bill to authorize the construction of a reconciliation

place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes

Summary: S. 1658 would authorize the construction of a building—to be known as Reconciliation Place—in Fort Pierre, South

Dakota. It would house displays on the history of the Sioux Nation,

and the offices of the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court and National Native American Mediation Training Center, the Native

American Economic Development Council, and the Lewis and Clark

Interpretive Center.

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing S. 1658 would cost $60 million over the

2001–2005 period. Because enactment of S. 1658 would not affect

direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not

apply. S. 1658 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) and would have no significant impact on the budgets of

state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1658 is shown in the following table. The costs

of this legislation fall within budget functions 750 (administration

of justice) and 450 (community and regional development).

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Construction of Reconciliation Place:

Authorization level .......................................................................................... 18 0 0 0 0

Estimated outlays .......................................................................................... 8 10 0 0 0

Sioux Nation Supreme Court and National Native American Mediation Training

Center:

Estimated authorization level ........................................................................ 1 1 (1) (1) (1)

Estimated outlays .......................................................................................... 1 1 (1) (1) (1)

Native American Economic Development Council:

Authorization level .......................................................................................... 0 10 10 10 10

13

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Estimated outlays .......................................................................................... 0 10 10 10 10

Total Spending Under S. 1658:

Estimated authorization level ...................................................... 19 11 10 10 10

Estimated outlays ........................................................................ 9 21 10 10 10

1 Less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate: S. 1658 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust that is currently the property of the

Wakpa Sica Historical Society, a private nonprofit corporation. The

bill would authorize the appropriation of $18 million to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for a grant to the Wapka

Sica Historical Society to construct Reconciliation Place on the land

taken into trust. Reconciliation Place would serve as a visitor center, museum, educational center, and theater. It also would house

the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court, the National Native American Mediation Training Center, and the Native American Economic Development Council. Based on information from the Administration, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $18 million

over the 2001–2002 period.

S. 1658 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide technical

and financial assistance to the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court

and National Native American Mediation Training Center. Based

on information from DOJ, CBO estimates that this provision would

cost $1 million in each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to establish

a law library, develop training and support materials, and train

staff. After 2002, CBO estimates the cost of paying staff and maintaining the law library and support materials would be less than

$500,000 each year.

Finally, the bill would establish the Native American Economic

Development Council to provide technical and financial assistance

to Indians and Indian tribes in obtaining federal financial assistance to establish new businesses. S. 1658 would authorize the appropriation of $10 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through

2006 for grants to the Native American Economic Development

Council. CBO estimates that this provision would cost $40 million

over the 2002–2005 period, subject to the appropriation of the authorized amounts.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1658 contains no

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA

and would have no significant impact on the budgets of state, local,

or tribal governments.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Lanette J. Keith and Ali

Aslam. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Susan

Sieg Thompkins. Impact on the Private Sector: Sarah Sitarek.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The views of the Administration on S. 1658 are set forth in the

following statement of Mark C. Van Norman, Director, Office of

14

Tribal Justice, United States Department of Justice, on May 17,

2000, to the Committee on Indian Affairs:

STATEMENT OF MARK C. VAN NORMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF TRIBAL JUSTICE

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. My name is Mark C. Van Norman and I am

the Director of the Office of Tribal Justice, Department of

Justice. Thank you for inviting us to testify on S. 1658, a

Bill to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place

in Forte Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes.

At the outset, I should emphasize the importance of the

government-to-government relations. Congress has a longstanding policy of promoting Indian Self-Determination

and in recognition of Indian sovereignty, promotes government-to-government relations with Indian tribes. The Executive Branch also respects the sovereignty of Indian

tribes and works with the tribes on a government-to-government basis. In 1998, the President Executive Order

13084, on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which explains fundamental principles of

Federal-tribes relations:

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth

in the Constitution of the United States, treaties,

statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions.

Since the formation of the Union, the United

States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic

dependent nations under its protection. In treaties, our Nation has guaranteed the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent

sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis

to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty

and other rights.

63 Fed. Reg. 27655 (1998).

In our Department of Justice Policy on Indian Sovereignty and Government-to-Government Relations with

Indian Tribes, we have pledged to work with Indian tribes

on a government-to-government basis, guided by respect

for tribal sovereignty, and to assist Indian tribes as they

work to develop strong law enforcement, tribal courts, and

traditional justice systems. 61 Fed. Reg. 29424 (1996). The

Office of Tribal Justice was established in 1995 to provide

a permanent channel of communication for tribal governments to express their concerns to the Department of Justice; to coordinate departmental policy on Indian affairs

both within the Department and with other federal agencies; and to ensure that the Department works with the

tribes on a basis of government-to-government relations.

15

S. 1658 would authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place in Pierre, South Dakota, promote the formation

of the Sioux Nation Supreme Court to serve as an appellate court for the tribes of the Sioux Nation, and establish

an economic development council.

The Administration believes that steps have been taken

to render the construction of a Reconciliation Place and the

establishment of an economic development council unnecessary. The Administration has requested in the FY 2001

budget funds for the planning and design of the Lakota

Sioux Heritage Cultural Center at Badlands National

Park. Planning for the Center’s construction is well underway and road construction is ongoing in this Fiscal Year.

The Center will promote the public’s understanding of the

history of the Sioux Nation and act as a repository for cultural and historical items.

Similary, the Administration has established Native

American EDGE. Native EDGE is HUD’s Native American

Economic Development Access Center which will, for the

first time, link over twelve Federal agencies through a single toll-free number and web-site so that lending institutions, non-profits, foundations, Native American business

owners, and private businesses can collaborate to achieve

sustainable economic development in Indian country. The

Access Center will provide personalized research, initiate

dialogue among entrepreneurs, coordinate with other Federal agencies, and share knowledge and experience to ensure the expansion of economic development in Indian

country.

Pursuant to our mission, the Office of Tribal Justice consulted with tribal representatives who have told us that

they view efforts to promote the unity of the Sioux Nation

as an important objective and support the concept of the

Sioux Nation Supreme Court. The Department of Justice

joins the Sioux tribes and the State of South Dakota in

supporting a strong tribal court system as envisioned by

section 102 of S. 1658.

Before turning to a discussion of the history and circumstances of the Sioux Nation, I would like to touch

briefly on some of our general work in the areas of tribal

law enforcement, tribal justice and reconciliation between

the United States and Native Americans.

The Department of Justice has been working on both

civil rights concerns and tribal justice concerns among Native Americans generally, and the tribes of the Sioux Nation in particular. The Department of Justice, for example,

participated in the hearing that the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission held

in Rapid City, South Dakota in December, 1999 to address

the concerns of Native Americans. In keeping with the S.

1658 policy that promotes the formation of a Sioux Nation

Supreme Court, the State Advisory Committee made a

number of recommendations to assist tribal courts in administering justice. Among other things, the Committee

recommended,

16

The Department of Justice and Interior should

expand their efforts to provide funding, training,

and technical assistance to tribal courts and tribal

law enforcement. Tribal governments should make

every effort to insulate their professional law enforcement entities and courts from the pressures

of political influence and patronage.

Three years before this recommendation, the Department of Justice—together with the Department of the Interior—undertook the Indian Country Law Enforcement

Improvement Initiative. The State Advisory Committee’s

recommendation reinforces the importance of our FY 2001

budget request. The Department of Justice requested $173

million to improve tribal law enforcement and justice systems, including $45 million for tribal police, $34 million for

tribal detention, $20 million for tribal juvenile justice, and

a $15 million request to enhance tribal courts, among

other things. This request is essential because effective

tribal law enforcement is a necessary adjunct to effective

Federal law enforcement in areas of Indian country, like

South Dakota, that rely on the Justice Department to

prosecute general felony crimes by or against Indians. Furthermore, tribal courts are necessary partners with the

tribal police maintaining public safety on Indian reservations.

The Department of Justice promotes the formation of

intertribal courts, consistent with tribal self-determination.

The Sioux tribes have a vital need for assistance in the

area of tribal law enforcement and tribal courts, and the

Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Bureau of

Indian Affairs, has been working actively with the tribes

of the Sioux Nation under the Indian Law Enforcement

Improvement Initiative.

The Civil Rights Division also actively protects the civil

rights of American Indians and Alaska Natives through its

enforcement of various civil rights statutes, including the

criminal statutes that allow for federal prosecution of hate

crimes and police misconduct, the Voting Rights Act, the

Fair Housing Act, and the Equal Opportunity Credit Act.

For example, the Civil Rights Division has brought lending

discrimination cases against banks which charge Indians

higher interest rates than other customers. In May 1997,

the United States and a Nebraska bank that serves the

Oglala Sioux community entered a consent decree, which

provides that the bank will pay $175,000 for victim compensation, pay $100,000 towards application fees on new

loans to Indians, actively recruit Indian employees, and

provide an education program for Indian borrowers. Positive working relationships with tribal governments play an

important part in the success of the Division’s work to protect the civil rights of Native Americans.

17

THE HISTORY OF THE SIOUX NATION & THE NEED FOR

RECONCILIATION

Historically, the United States adopted a policy to protect Indian tribes, Indian lands, and Indian rights. In the

Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Continental Congress

declared:

The utmost good faith shall always be observed

to the Indians, their lands and property shall

never be taken from them without their consent;

and in their property, rights and liberty, they

never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just

and lawful wars authorised by Congress; but laws

founded in justice and humanity shall from time

to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done

to them, and for preserving peace and friendship

with them. * * *

Consistent with this policy, President Jefferson commissioned the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1803 to explore

the Louisiana Purchase.

As the expedition made its way up the Missouri River

through South Dakota, Lewis and Clark stopped and visited the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Among the Yankton Sioux,

a young baby was wrapped in an American flag by the expedition members. That baby later grew up to be the famous Yankton Chief, Struck by the Ree, and he led his

people on a course of friendship with the United States.

See Struck by the Ree, Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan

(Sept. 12, 1994); http://www.yankton.net/stories/091599/

buslstruck.html. In 1858, Chief Struck by the Ree signed

the Treaty of 1858 with the United States on behalf of his

tribe, preserving the peace and securing the Yankton

Sioux homeland. See Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1858;

11 Stat. 748. This event is just one example of the profound effect that the Lewis and Clark expedition had on

the Sioux Nation. The Lewis and Clark expedition met the

Sioux people at other places along the Missouri River, notably near the present day site of Fort Pierre along the

Bad River. Yankton Area Chamber of Commerce, Lewis &

Clark Historic Trail: the South Dakota Trail http://

www.lewisclark.net/sdtrail/index.html. Thus, the Bad

River, or Wakpa Sica in the Lakota language, is a very appropriate site for a Reconciliation Center.

In 1815, the United States entered into treaties with the

Dakota and Lakota tribes of the Sioux Nation, which

pledged federal protection for the tribes. See e.g., Treaty

with the Teton (Lakota), 1815, 7 Stat. 125. In 1825, the

United States entered into treaties of peace, friendship

and commerce with the tribes of the Sioux Nation to promote the fur trade and the safe passage of American citizens through Sioux Nation territory. See e.g., Treaty with

the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, 1825, 7 Stat. 257.

In 1851, to facilitate trade and reduce intertribal conflict

that sometimes threatened safe passage, the United States

entered into treaty with the Sioux and neighboring Indian

18

tribes, which described their respective aboriginal areas.

Treaty with the Sioux, 1851, 11 Stat. 749.

After the Civil War, the United States’ expansion westward brought conflict with the Sioux Nation, who saw

their buffalo herds begin to decline with the passage of settlers along the Oregon Trail. In 1866, the United States

sought to build a road through Sioux Nation hunting

grounds in the Powder River valley, and the Sioux tribes

objected. For the next two years, the Sioux tribes fought

the Powder River or Red Cloud’s War to protect their

hunting grounds and ultimately, the United States determined that the best course would be to enter into a treaty

that established a permanent reservation for the Sioux Nation and delineated their hunting grounds. In the Treaty

with the Sioux Nation, 1868, the United States set aside

South Dakota west of the Missouri River as the Great

Sioux Reservation as a ‘‘permanent home’’ for the Sioux

Nation and delineated tribal hunting lands in the Powder

River valley. Treaty with the Sioux, 1868; 15 Stat. 635.

Yet, in 1874, gold was discovered in the Black Hills of

South Dakota, and a gold rush began. After attempting to

maintain existing reservation boundaries, the Grant Administration sought to purchase the Black Hills, but the

Sioux Nation declined. In 1876, the United States ordered

the Sioux to report to Indian agencies along the Missouri

River and in Nebraska, away from the Black Hills. When

Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and several bands of Sioux refused to comply, the United States sent out the army to

force the issue. This led to the Battles of the Rosebud and

the Little Big Horn. After Custer’s defeat at the Little Big

Horn, the United States sent out more troops to force the

Sioux to report to the Indian agencies, resulting in the

Battle of Slim Butte and many other battles where a number of Sioux were killed. United States v. Sioux Nation,

448 U.S. 371, 379–80 (1980). In 1877, Congress passed an

Act taking the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation. Act of

Feb. 28, 1877, 19 Stat. 254.

In the 1880s, the United States sought more land from

the Sioux. In the 1889 Agreement with the Sioux, the

United States divided the Great Sioux Reservation into the

Cheyenne River, Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Pine Ridge,

Rosebud, and Standing Rock Sioux Reservations. The

United States acquired several million acres of surplus

lands. Shortly after this Act, the Ghost Dance religion became popular on several of the reservations. Some non-Indians were alarmed because the Ghost Dance was practiced in substantial encampments, the U.S. Army was

called in, and in December, 1890, more than 300 Sioux Indians, mostly unarmed elderly, women and children, were

massacred at Wounded Knee. Sioux Tribe of Indians v.

United States, 7 CI. Ct. 468, 476 (CI. Ct. 1985). The

United States has expressed its sincere regret for the

Wounded Knee Massacre.

Many of the Native American people of South Dakota

continue to feel the loss brought about by these events.

19

Against this background, it is appropriate for Congress to

establish a Reconciliation Place to reflect the history of the

Lewis and Clark Expedition and to promote knowledge of

and understanding of the history and culture of the Sioux

Nation. This effort would help foster a healing spirit of reconciliation among the Sioux Nation and other citizens of

South Dakota and would promote a better understanding

of Native American history and culture among the Nation

as a whole.

Furthermore, the Committee might consider reconciliation among Native Americans in a larger sense. There is

a need for Native American mediators trained in conflict

resolution techniques throughout Indian country to address conflicts that sometimes arise between Indian tribes

and neighboring communities and within tribal communities themselves. Presently, the Department of Justice

Community Relations Service (CRS) provides mediation

services to tribal governments throughout the Nation.

There are many situations where CRS cannot respond due

to jurisdictional restrictions or resource allocation issues.

The Committee might consider whether these needs might

be addressed by the establishment of a mediation training

center at the proposed Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place.

Such a mediation center would enable tribal leaders and

officials to acquire mediation skills useful in mediating

conflicts that arise in Indian communities and surrounding

communities. CRS could assist by providing technical assistance to such a mediation training center.

THE SIOUX NATION SUPREME COURT

As I noted earlier, the Department supports the development of intertribal courts. There are a number of such efforts in place among tribes in the United States, including

intertribal courts of appeals like the Northwest Inter-tribal

Court of Appeals. These intertribal courts can produce a

number of benefits. They promote inter-tribal unity. The

resource sharing they represent can produce efficiencies.

In instances where multiple tribes share a common political, historical, and cultural experience, they can represent

a step towards that tradition of political unity. They can

provide a means for marshaling legal expertise—including

expertise in tribal customary legal structures—to provide

high quality adjudication of disputes.

The Department of Justice supports the efforts of the

constituent tribes of the Great Sioux Nation to form the

Sioux Nation Tribal Court. These tribes share a history

and tradition of unified political structure and action.

Many of their respective constitutions and by-laws retain

a recognition of that historical structure by authorizing

their tribal councils to select delegates to serve on a Sioux

Nation Council. Moreover, as federally-recognized Indian

tribes, each constituent tribe of the Great Sioux Nation

‘‘possess[es] the inherent authority to establish [its] own

form of government, including tribal justice systems.’’ 25

U.S.C. § 3601(4). This authority has been termed ‘‘the first

20

element of sovereignty.’’ Felix M. Cohen’s Handbook of

Federal Indian Law (1982 ed.) at 247. Their respective decisions to participate in the Sioux Nation Tribal Court is

an exercise of that authority. The Department supports

that exercise, consistent with the Department’s Policy on

Indian Tribal Sovereignty and Government-to-Government

Relations with Indian Tribes, which declares the Department’s commitment ‘‘to strengthening and assisting tribal

governments in their development and to promoting Indian self-governance.’’

Section 102(a) of S. 1658 would direct the Department of

Justice to provide technical and financial assistance to the

Sioux Nation towards the development and operation of

the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court and this provision

falls within the Department’s commitment to assist Indian

tribes as they develop strong tribal courts. The language

of section 102(a) requires technical amendment, however.

The current language of section 102(a) directs the Department to ‘‘provide such technical and financial assistance to

the Sioux Nation as is necessary.’’ This language should be

amended to provide that: ‘‘To promote the development

and operation of the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court,

the Attorney General may provide appropriate technical

and financial assistance to the Sioux Nation from available

funds.’’

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Administration supports the vision of

strong tribal courts as embodied in S. 1658. Again, thank

you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee

today.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each report accompany a bill to evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying

out the bill S. 1658, as amended. The Committee finds that the regulatory impact of S. 1658, as amended, will be negligible.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of the rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill

are required to be set forth in the accompanying Committee report.

The Committee states that enactment of S. 1658 will not result in

any change in existing law.

Æ