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

65–293 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–923

H.R. 4347, TO AMEND THE INDIAN SELF–

DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

ACT TO PROVIDE FURTHER SELF–GOVERNANCE

BY INDIAN TRIBES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

NOVEMBER 18, 2010

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ALLISON C. BINNEY, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 18, 2010 ...................................................................... 1

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

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 5

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 5

WITNESSES

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

Chairman, Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal Consortium; and Chairman, Title IV—DOI Amendments Tribal Workgroup; accompanied by: Geoffrey Strommer, Partner, Hobbs, Strauss, Dean and Walker .. 13

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 16

Micklin, Hon. Will, First Vice-President, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida 

Indian Tribes of Alaska ....................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Skibine, George, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; accompanied by Sharee Freeman, 

Director, Office of Self-Governance ..................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX

Boren, Hon. Dan, U.S. Representative from Oklahoma, prepared statement .... 39

Reffalt, William C., Vice President/Issues Coordinator, Blue Goose Alliance, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 40

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to: 

Hon. W. Ron Allen ............................................................................................ 43

Hon. Will Micklin ............................................................................................. 49

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to: 

Hon. W. Ron Allen ............................................................................................ 41

Hon. Will Micklin ............................................................................................. 45

Written questions submitted to George Skibine ................................................... 50

(1)

H.R. 4347, TO AMEND THE INDIAN

SELF–DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION

ASSISTANCE ACT TO PROVIDE FURTHER 

SELF-GOVERNANCE BY INDIAN TRIBES, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now turn to the hearing. The hearing 

itself that we have scheduled for today will come to order. This 

Committee is holding a hearing on H.R. 4347, the Department of 

the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act of 2010. This is a piece of 

legislation that makes changes in the self-governance program at 

the Department of the Interior. 

The Indian Self-Determination Act I think has been one of the 

most important pieces of legislation for tribes and for tribal sovereignty. This legislation allows tribes to take control of programs 

that were previously administered by the Federal Government. 

When tribes administer these programs, it gives them the ability 

to provide jobs in their communities and decide themselves the best 

way to deliver services and programs to their tribal members. 

Today we have over 300 Indian tribes that are participating in 

the self-governance program with either the Department of the Interior or the Indian Health Service at Health and Human Services. 

Although the program has been successful for tribes over the past 

several years, Congress, tribes and the Administration have been 

discussing ways to improve the self-governance process. H.R. 4347 

is the result of many of those discussions. 

The bill would improve the contract negotiation process between 

the tribes and the Department of the Interior. It would streamline 

funding processes and it would provide deadlines for the Department to respond to tribes. 

The bill passed the House of Representatives by unanimous consent in September and appears to have a good level of support from 

both Congress and the tribes. The Administration has expressed 

2

still a few outstanding concerns about the bill. So I thought it was 

important to hold a hearing to get their views. But I hope we will 

be able to move quickly on this bill following the hearing, because 

time is running very short in this session. 

Mr. George Skibine is here with us today on behalf of the Department of the Interior to present the agency’s views on the bill. 

We will also hear from Ron Allen, who represents several self-governance organizations and who has been working on this issue for 

a number of years. Finally, we will hear from Will Micklin, who 

will represent the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes of 

Alaska. The Central Council was one of the earliest groups to take 

advantage of self-governance, and will discuss their experiences 

with the program and make recommendations for how to proceed 

and how this process could be improved through this legislation. 

I want to mention that I have a statement for the record from 

Congressman Dan Boren who introduced the bill in the House. He 

has been a big supporter in making changes to the self-governance 

program. Congressman Boren’s statement will be entered in the official record, and I will also encourage any other interested parties 

who wish to include written comments or even submit written comments here to this Committee to do so. 

We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks from today. 

And with that, I want to welcome the witnesses. I know that my 

colleague, Senator Barrasso, has some comments. I would recognize 

comments from anyone else on the Committee as well. Senator 

Barrasso? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding what may be your last hearing as Chairman of this Committee. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

many years of public service and for your dedication to the people 

of North Dakota and Indian Country. 

In all my time in this Committee, and it has only been a little 

over three years, you have consistently demonstrated the strongest 

possible commitment and dedication to our often complex and challenging business. While we have not always agreed on the methods 

for meeting the challenges of Indian Country, we have always 

agreed on the fundamental goal: improving the health, the safety 

and the lives of our Nation’s Indian people. And recognizing our 

common goal, you have always embraced the non-partisan, bipartisan spirit which has become a part of the institutional history of 

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 

And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I really appreciate 

that. I appreciate your hard work. I congratulate you on your many 

successes as Chairman of this Committee. And those include, but 

are by no means limited to your work in advancing public safety, 

in advancing health and education in Indian Country. It has truly 

been an honor to work with you on those issues. Although I know 

that there is still work to do in the last days of this Congress and 

in your office, I just want to express my heartfelt thanks and my 

appreciation to you today. I would ask that the members of this 

3

Committee, as well as the members of the audience, join me in 

thanking you for your incredible service. 

[Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Barrasso, now I am profoundly embarrassed at those excessive—does anyone else have any comments, other than about the Chairman? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I would just say to you, 

I have had the opportunity to work with Senator McCain as either 

Chair or Vice Chair, Senator Murkowski, Senator Barrasso. But 

more importantly, with so many other members of this Committee, 

who come to this Committee really understanding that we have the 

First Americans living in third world conditions in too many parts 

of this Country. We are dedicated and determined and have been 

for a long, long while to make changes that give them opportunity. 

So it has been a very proud moment for me in this part of my 

life to work on these issues. I intend in other ways to continue the 

work with Native Americans. I really appreciate the work of the 

people who have come to this Committee and made a big difference 

on the Committee. 

Senator Franken? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. I was going to make a similar statement 

about the Chairman, though not one that would pull applause and 

a standing ovation, which the Ranking Member so effectively did. 

But similar sentiments. 

I would like to talk about the principles of self-determination and 

self-governance. They are a major cornerstone of Federal Indian 

policy today. There is no question about it. No one knows the needs 

of a sovereign Indian tribe better than the tribe itself. 

Minnesota tribes are the national leaders in self-determination 

and self-governance. Mille Lacs and Red Lake were two of the first 

ten tribes to establish self-governance compacts with the Federal 

Government in the 1980s. They have been running their own programs for years. 

The first meeting I ever had was with Fond du Lac, and the first 

with the tribes in Minnesota. Karen Diver, the Chair of Fond du 

Lac, the first thing she said to me was, you got to know sovereignty. And she pointed me to a study written at the Kennedy 

School, which I went home and immediately read, about all the 

benefits of sovereignty. 

We need to make sure that the Federal Government is an effective partner to tribes like Red Lake and Mille Lacs. This means everything from providing technical support, appropriating adequate 

funding for contract support costs and making sure the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service makes decisions and 

responds to tribes within a reasonable amount of time. 

The bill under consideration today seeks to address some longstanding issues that have made it difficult for tribes in Minnesota 

to run their own programs effectively. Mille Lacs, the Mille Lacs 

band and the Red Lake Nation helped craft this legislation language in earlier Congresses. They are eager to see this bill move 

4

forward, and I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the 

bill today. 

I apologize, I am going to have to leave early because I have to 

go to another hearing. But I will submit my questions for the 

record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, not to embarrass you, but 

it has really been an honor being on this Committee with you as 

Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken, thank you very much. 

Before I call on Senator Tester, let me just say that I neglected 

to mention Senator Inouye and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. 

I should have. I have been enormously proud to serve with them 

while they were Chair of this Committee. All of them have done a 

wonderful job. It is part of the wonderful privilege of serving here 

to be able to serve with people like that. So let me be sure to mention Senator Inouye and Senator Campbell. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also want to associate myself with the remarks of the Ranking Member. I think 

he said it very well. On behalf of the seven reservations in Montana and the eight, nine, ten or eleven tribes, depending on how 

we want to count, I want to say thank you. When I go back to Montana, they say thank you to you, and for the good work that you 

have done. 

I remember the hearing we had on Crow on health care, and the 

little girl that was, well, enough said. I will just say that I appreciate your work in the many, many areas on this Committee as 

Chairman. I think if you look at the work that was accomplished 

by this Committee under your leadership, it is very, very impressive. 

I also want to talk about self-governance, self-determination, the 

bill we are going to hear about today. It has had a positive effect 

in Indian Country, but that does not mean we do not need to work 

to make it better. Absolutely, unequivocally, there are some issues 

with it, I think, that Native Americans have, that taxpayers have, 

that quite frankly the folks that implement it have. I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses today. I want to thank you for taking 

time to be here, so that we can make this better. 

I always think back to Chairman Carl Venne of the Crow, who 

passed away here a year or maybe it has been two now, who said, 

all I want is the tools to be able to be successful, and then I want 

you to just get out of the road, and we will go. I think that is what 

this is about, giving Indian Country the tools they need to be successful, and they will solve the problems. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell? 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want to 

add my thanks for the many visits that you paid to the Pacific 

Northwest. I think you ate a lot of salmon, and we appreciate that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CANTWELL. And you visited many of our Indian Country 

sites with the leadership from surrounding tribes participating. 

There is nothing that really replaces that on the ground visit and 

experience, to see some of the challenges. I want to personally 

thank you for your dedication to Indian health care, and the fact 

that we were able to be successful in moving very important legislation there, and for your continued dedication on making sure that 

we improve the governance of Indian Country. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, particularly 

Ron Allen from the Jamestown S’Klallam. They were one of the 

first of nine tribes to really take advantage of Indian self-determination. And today, that small group has now grown to something 

like 282 federally-recognized tribes. The number could be even 

higher, if this legislation is passed and the barriers to expand selfgovernance that are in the Title IV of the Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act are eliminated. 

So while there are a large number of tribes taking advantage of 

the flexibility and efficiency of these compacts with the Department, we obviously have to do more in this area. So I look forward 

to hearing from the witnesses today and their input on this. The 

changes that this bill would make to Title IV, including the requirement of the BIA to respond to final offers within 60 days, negotiate in good faith and require amendments to compacts should 

be agreed to. I think these provisions and many other changes are 

common sense changes needed to fully implement the original goals 

that we had for self-determination. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and moving this legislation through the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. Let me also associate myself with all the comments that have been made from our 

colleagues, including Ranking Member Barrasso, on your performance and your accomplishments here. I think you should be incredibly proud. The 12 years I have been in Congress, Chairman Dorgan, we have been fighting for that Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and always back and forth between the House and the 

Senate. 

I think you and the members of this Committee have finally gotten that done, and the Tribal law and Order Act and water settlements. And I know that you are still working now to the very end 

to see that we get some of these other things done, which are kind 

of pending out there in the lame duck. 

6

So congratulations on what I think has been one of the most productive periods for Native American legal and legislative accomplishments. 

Let me just say on the issue of self-governance, I really look forward to the witnesses. This is a good set of witnesses that I think 

can tackle this issue. 

One of the major points for me on self-governance is how far we 

have come. If you look, Ron, we were just at the National Congress 

of American Indians in Albuquerque. That Congress was started as 

a result of the assimilation and termination policies of the Federal 

Government back in 1944. If you look over the years, we have had 

dramatic improvements in self-governance, the development of tribal leaders. The tribes should be so, so proud of that. We look forward to working with all of you to further improve and make sure 

that we give you the tools to move forward. 

So thank you very much, Chairman Dorgan, once again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall, thank you very much. 

Mr. Skibine, welcome. You have testified many times before this 

Committee on a range of issues. You have done a lot of good work 

down at the Department and we welcome you today. 

You are accompanied by Sharee Freeman, who is the Director of 

the Office of Self-Governance. You are the Acting Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. We appreciate both of you 

being here. We will hear your testimony. The written testimony of 

all three of the witnesses will be included in the record in full, and 

we would ask all to summarize. 

Mr. Skibine, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE SKIBINE, ACTING PRINCIPAL

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED

BY SHAREE FREEMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

SELF-GOVERNANCE 

Mr. SKIBINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso, members of the Committee. 

It is a pleasure for me to be here today to appear before you and 

discuss the Department of Interior’s views on H.R. 4347, the Tribal 

Self-Governance Act, H.R. 4347, which seeks to amend both Title 

I and Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 

Let me begin by saying that the Administration and Secretary 

Salazar and Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk are very strong supporters of the self-determination and self-governance program and 

what it has done for Indian tribes. As stated earlier, the program 

started with just a few tribes, not that long ago, and now it has 

260 some tribes that participate. 

At Interior, Sharee Freeman, our Director of Self-Governance, 

administers the program out of her office here in D.C. with fairly 

limited staff. I think she has done an incredible job in doing that, 

given the amount of millions of dollars that pass through her office 

to go to Indian tribes. 

So the Administration’s strong support has meant that we tried 

over the years, and I have at numerous times met with Chairman 

Allen and members of his Title IV task force to essentially try to 

7

come to agreements in amending Title IV for the purposes that the 

tribes want them to do. We started in the middle of the Bush Administration to have meetings. They weren’t really going anywhere 

for a while, and then we made a push for it, and I think we almost 

got there after numerous meetings with the self-governance tribal 

group. 

But at the time, the Bush Administration was really opposed to 

making mandatory compacts with non-BIA agencies. That was 

really one of the pushes of the initial bill. It was a non-started for 

the Bush Administration, so we were really unable to do that. 

When the bill was re-introduced in the House here, I think that 

provision was gone in terms of that. And many, many of the provisions that we objected to were taken out. There was a pilot project 

that the Administration opposed when we testified in front of the 

House. That has been removed. So I think we have come a long 

way. 

At the end of the session, the House passed a substitute bill that 

although taking some of our objections into consideration injected 

additional provisions which we had not agreed to. As a result, there 

have always been a few of the provisions in there on which the 

tribes and the Administration have simply not come to agreement. 

So we were not very far, but essentially there is still some work 

to do. 

So even though today we cannot support the bill as passed by the 

House, I think that we are fairly close and I think we would like 

to work with the tribes to be able to come to an agreement. We met 

with members of the staff here before this hearing and essentially 

articulated to the staff what our concerns were, concerns with the 

bill as passed by the House. So essentially, that is where we are 

right now. It is close, but it is not quite there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Skibine, in your testimony, you say you met 

with our staff, told us what the concerns were. Summarize the concerns. 

Mr. SKIBINE. Yes, I will summarize some of the concerns that we 

have. For instance, we have a concern with the fact that the declination criteria of Title V that pertains to IHS were inserted in the 

bill. And that in fact, there is a 60-day time frame imposed on the 

government in order to approve a funding agreement, or list why, 

under the IHS declination criteria, it cannot go forward with it. 

Right now, for BIA, the tribe can choose to include in its funding 

agreement any provisions of Title I. So usually the declination criteria in Title I are included. On this bill, we have 90 days to approve or not. And it is deemed approved if we don’t do anything 

after 90 days. We believe that the 90 day time frame that we have 

used for the past 25, 30 years in self-governance, the determination 

that was passed is more appropriate. 

I think the problem that we have with the IHS criteria is that 

right now, for non-BIA agencies, the entering into self-governance 

compact and funding agreement is discretionary, by and large discretionary. So if it doesn’t work, they don’t do it. But I think that 

by requiring those agencies to, at 60 days, to disapprove or approve 

a final offer under specific declination criteria really makes it quite 

quasi-mandatory for them to do something. 

8

So I think there is some real concern, especially with the nonBIA agencies, over the import of that particular provision. I think 

in Indian Affairs, we prefer having the existing declination criteria 

and I think we also prefer to have the 90 days. 

Some of the other concerns we have are that the bill requires a 

turnaround of 10 days from apportionment of the funds to the 

tribe. And although we understand that IHS does that, at the Department, our financial system is not geared up or designed to be 

able to do that. So we would not be able to comply with that provision. We think that it is not, at this point, essentially, we can’t 

really support something that we cannot comply with because of 

the way our financial systems are devised. 

Another provision that is an issue is the issue with regulations. 

I think one of the time frames in the regulation says that the authority to regulate, to issue regulation, expires after, I think it is 

24 months. I think that we have 18 months to come up with proposed regs. So we think it will be impossible, based on past experience, to come up with final regulations six months after coming up 

with proposed regulations. 

Our experience with negotiated rulemaking, both with 638 and 

self-governance, is that it takes an incredible amount of time to 

come up with these regs based on consultation with tribes. And 

that in effect, we would like to have a broader time frame. 

I remember that when I was involved in the negotiation rulemaking with 638 tribes, we also had a deadline in the Act, and we 

couldn’t meet it. We had to come back to Congress to amend the 

Act just to provide more time. So that is a problem. 

Now, we also, I think, we have a problem with some of the reports that are required in the legislation. One of these reports, 

which I have told the self-governance tribes is a problem, is that 

we have to come up with a report identifying the amount of funds 

that we spend for inherently Federal functions. I think that practically, we would never be able to come up with this figure. Plus, 

it would be costly. 

So we think that to minimize cost and to make it more acceptable to the Administration, a provision that requires that and some 

other reports is unnecessary. 

Finally, although we have identified to the staff some other provisions, we have a concern from the non-BIA agencies in the section on construction. I think that with non-BIA agencies, especially 

Bureau of Reclamation, that the Bureau would like more involvement and ability to monitor construction contracts. 

So with that, I think that will essentially summarize my comments, unless, Sharee, you have anything to add at this point. And 

Sharee will be pleased to answer any of the questions that you may 

have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a lot of questions, actually. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skibine follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE SKIBINE, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good morning, Chairman Dorgan, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

Department of the Interior’s Tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance programs and H.R. 4347, the Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act. 

9

H.R. 4347 seeks to amend both Title I and Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA or Act) (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.). While the 

Administration supports the principles of self-determination and self-governance, we 

cannot support the bill, H.R. 4347, as passed by the House, as it poses significant 

practical and legal problems with regard to appropriate management of federal 

funding and programs. 

President Obama recognizes that federally recognized Indian tribes are sovereign, 

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

with the United States government, as expressly recognized in the U.S. Constitution. Secretary Salazar too is a strong supporter of the principle of tribal self-determination, the principles of ISDEAA, and is committed to working to fully enable 

tribal self-governance. 

Funding agreements under this Act have helped to strengthen government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. We support appropriate strengthening of 

the existing ISDEAA to make it work better for the Federal government and for Indian tribal governments. 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-governance compacts and funding agreements, they are not viewed by the Federal government as just another Federal contractor, and that their work under funding agreements reflects a true government-to-government relationship characterized 

by mutually agreed-to responsibilities and tribal empowerment to make a program 

work. 

On June 9, 2010, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on H.R. 

4347, and on September 22, 2010 the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives. 

This legislation deals, not only with funding agreements between tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), but also funding agreements between 

tribal governments and non-BIA bureaus and offices within the Department. We are 

interested in discussing how to improve Title I and Title IV, but under this legislation, as passed by the House, the Secretary has little ability to maintain appropriate 

oversight of the programs that tribal governments assume from the Federal Government. 

The Department recognizes and appreciates that Indian tribal governments have 

worked diligently over the past decade to amend and improve Title IV of the 

ISDEAA. We recognize the need for this program to evolve to improve and increase 

the frequency of funding agreements. Since the House hearing in June on H.R. 

4347, the Department has met and cooperated with legislative staff and tribal government representatives to discuss the Department’s concerns with the bill. These 

efforts include:

• Four meetings or conference calls with legislative staff;

• E-mail correspondence with legislative staff;

• Two conference calls with representatives of tribal governments, and;

• One meeting with both legislative staff and tribal government representatives.

We note, and appreciate, that the bill, as passed by the House, addresses some 

of the issues raised by the Department in earlier testimony. We request an opportunity to continue working with the Committee and tribal government representatives to discuss the Department’s concerns. With further dialogue and information 

exchanges, this bill could be significantly improved. 

My statement will begin with a brief discussion of the history of the ISDEAA. I 

will then discuss some examples of successes that the Department has recently had 

under the enacted ISDEAA. Finally, I will conclude with a discussion of general and 

specific concerns with the bill. 

Background 

In 1988, Congress amended the ISDEAA by adding Title III, which authorized the 

self-governance demonstration project. In 1994, Congress again amended the Act by 

including Title IV, which established a program within the Department to be known 

as Tribal Self-Governance. The addition of Title IV made self-governance a permanent option for tribes. These amendments, in section 403(b), authorized federally 

recognized tribes that meet criteria established for the program, to negotiate funding agreements with the Department for programs, services, functions or activities 

administered by the BIA. Within certain parameters, the amendments authorized 

funding agreements with other bureaus of the Department. In 2000, the Act was 

10

amended again to include Titles V and VI, making self-governance a permanent option for tribes to negotiate compacts with the Indian Health Service (IHS) within 

the Department of Health and Human Services and provided for a study to determine the feasibility of conducting a Self-Governance Demonstration Project in other 

programs of that department. 

In total, current law allows federally recognized Tribes and tribal consortiums to 

assume programs administered by the Department’s bureaus and offices, subject to 

negotiations, when the programs are available to Indian tribes or Indians because 

of their status as Indians. The law also provides the Secretary with discretion to 

include other programs under his administration which are of special geographic, 

historical, or cultural significance to the participating tribal government requesting 

a compact. 

Tribal participation in self-governance has progressed from seven tribes and total obligations of about $27 million in 1991 to an expected 100 agreements including 

260 federally recognized tribes and obligations in excess of $420 million in FY 2011. 

This figure includes funding from BIA and other Federal funds that pass through 

BIA. Other Department bureaus and offices also fund agreements under the authority of the ISDEAA, also known as P.L. 93–638. 

These self-governance funding agreements allow federally recognized tribes to 

plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, functions, and activities according to priorities established by tribal governments. Under these agreements, tribal governments provide a wide range of programs and services to their 

members such as law enforcement, education, and welfare assistance. Many of the 

funding agreements include trust related programs such as real estate services, appraisals, probates and natural resource programs such as forestry, fisheries, and agriculture. Under tribal self-governance, tribal governments have authority to redesign or consolidate many BIA programs, services, functions, and activities other 

than construction. In addition, self-governance tribes can reallocate certain funds 

during the year and spend carry-over funds in the next fiscal year without Secretarial approval. As a result, these funds can be used with relative flexibility to address each tribal government’s unique condition. Self-governance tribes are subject 

to annual trust evaluations to monitor the performance of trust functions they perform. They are also subject to annual audits pursuant to the Single Audit Act 

Amendments (P.L. 104–156) and OMB Circular A–133. In addition, most self-governance tribes have included language in their funding agreements indicating that 

they will work with the Department to provide applicable data and information pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. 

What makes these funding agreements unique is that Title IV of ISDEAA allows 

participating tribal governments to re-design many programs for their members and 

set their own priorities consistent with Federal laws and regulations. This authority 

allows tribal leaders to respond to the unique needs of their tribal members without 

seeking approval by Departmental officials. 

Successful Departmental Self-Governance programs 

Many tribal governments have successfully implemented self-governance programs to meet their unique needs. For example, the Chickasaw Nation in 2006 provided education services to over 7,200 students. In addition, 945 students participated in remedial education and tutoring and 82 percent of the students receiving 

tutoring gained one grade level or more. Scholarships were provided to 181 undergraduate students and 43 graduate students. The Tribe’s tribal district court heard 

1,118 cases, and collected almost $50,000 in court fees and over $32,000 for restitution and child support. In January 2006, the Tribe’s Supreme Court and district 

court were audited by BIA and received excellent ratings. The Tribe also provided 

career counseling, skills assessment, aptitude testing, and other employment readying services to 1,320 clients. The Tribe coordinated a job fair that attracted 53 vendors and over 500 job seekers. The Tribe’s police department implemented a new 

computer system which has aided in multiple dispatching methods and improved 

data collection, investigation, and crime analysis and reporting. This example is just 

one of many where Tribes have been successful in directly administering federal 

programs. 

Section 403(b)(2) of Title IV of ISDEAA authorizes other bureaus within the Department to enter into funding agreements with tribal governments subject to such 

terms as may be negotiated between the parties. The Council of Athabascan Tribal 

Governments (CATG) has successfully implemented Annual Funding Agreements 

(AFAs) since 2004 to perform activities in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

in the interior of Alaska. The CATG is a consortium that represents the Tribal governments of Arctic Village, Beaver, Birch Creek, Canyon Village, Chalkyitsik, Circle, 

Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government of Fort Yukon, Rampart, Stevens VilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:46 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 065293 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\65293.TXT JACK
11

1See H.R. 111–603 at 18 (Sept. 16, 2010). 2See http://info.ihs.gov/TrblSlfGov.asp (last visited Nov. 12, 2010). 

lage, and Venetie. Members of these Tribes live near or within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, the third largest of the more than 540 conservation units in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge was established in 1980, and includes more than 8.5 million acres of wetland and boreal forest habitat along 300 

miles of the Yukon River, north of Fairbanks, Alaska. It is internationally noted for 

its abundance of migratory birds. 

CATG has been able to successful negotiate agreements to fund activities including: (1) wildlife harvest data collection; (2) Yukon Flats moose management; and (3) 

maintenance of Federal property in and around Fort Yukon. Public use (including 

sport and subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping) is not affected by these agreements. Consistent with Title IV, management authority remains with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. 

The agreements between the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa and Grand Portage National Monument show how the self-governance program works in the National Park Service (NPS). Grand Portage National Monument and Grand Portage 

Band of Chippewa have had 11 years of successive base contracts for all maintenance, design and construction at the monument. There have been 13 amendments 

to the base contract plus 68 additional projects for GIS, sewage lift stations, trail 

work, exhibits, parking lots, landscaping, signage, mortar work, generator and roof 

repair, and more. The tribe manages roughly one quarter of the annual appropriations made to NPS for the Grand Portage National Monument. As of September 

2009, $4,514,173 has been transferred and used for projects 

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) also presents case examples of successful implementation of Self-governance compacts under the current law. In FY 2009, 

Reclamation had annual funding agreements with five Tribes, totaling about $67 

million, which includes funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(Public Law 111–5). One of these funding agreements is with the Chippewa Cree 

Tribe (CCT) of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation. Reclamation’s Montana Area Office in 

the Great Plains Region and the CCT have been working together under a series 

of self-governance Annual Funding Agreements (AFAs) under Title IV of ISDEAA 

to implement on-reservation water resource development as provided for in the 

CCT’s 1999 water rights settlement act. Under these AFAs, the CCT assumed responsibility for planning, designing, and constructing dam enlargement and rehabilitation for Bonneau, Brown’s, and East Fork Dams and Towe Ponds, as well as 

providing for future water development. The CCT created the Chippewa Cree Construction Company, which has successfully completed much of the work carried out 

under these AFAs, providing training and jobs for tribal members in the process. 

Reclamation’s role has been to provide administrative oversight and technical assistance. The working relationship between the CCT and Reclamation has been cordial, 

productive, and carried out in a professional manner. As of August 2009, the CCT 

completed all of the work at Bonneau, Browns, East Fork Dams and Towe Ponds. 

At this time, all of the facilities are operational and are full or substantially full. 

Another successful working relationship between Reclamation and the CCT under 

Title IV involves ongoing work on features of the Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Water Project, a rural water system. 

Department Concerns with H.R. 4347

Over the past decade, Indian tribal governments have been diligently seeking to 

amend and improve Title IV of the ISDEAA Tribal self-governance program. The 

Department recognizes the need for this program to evolve so as to build on these 

successful efforts and to increase the number of funding agreements. 

The goal of H.R. 4347 is to make the administration of the Department’s Tribal 

Self-Governance program consistent with the administration of the IHS Self-Governance program. 1 Less apparent are the reasons for insisting that the Interior Department’s and IHS’s Tribal Self-Governance programs be consistent. 

Congress extended the self-governance program to IHS programs so that tribal 

governments would have more autonomy in the management and delivery of tribal 

health care programs that serve tribal members. 2 IHS’s primary mission is to provide federal health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Additionally, 

the IHS provides other services to American Indians and Alaska Natives, including 

facilities construction, water and sanitation services, scholarships for health professionals, and health services to urban Indians. The Department’s responsibilities are 

also multifaceted and vary with the mission of the bureau or office. However, there 

are distinct different in the Department’s responsibilities. For example, the RecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:46 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 065293 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\65293.TXT JACK
12

3See http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/mission.html (last visited Nov. 12, 2010). 

4See http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html (last visited Nov. 12, 2010). 

5See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/alpena/mission.html (last visited Nov. 12, 2010). 

6See 25 U.S.C. § 458aaa–6(c)(1)(A). 7 25 U.S.C. § 458aaa–6(c)(1)(A).

lamation’s mission is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources 

in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 3 The National Park Service’s mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 4 While the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 5

Unlike IHS, which is dedicated to providing health services to American Indians 

and Alaska Natives, these non-BIA bureaus serve many constituent groups and interests through diverse programs and projects, which affects how these other bureaus are structured and how they carry out their programs. 

A fundamental question is whether Title V is the appropriate model for administering Title IV programs. The Department believes that the way Title V programs 

are administered would not work well for Title IV programs. 

For example, Title V has limited grounds for declination of a funding agreement. 

The enumerated list is also known as ‘‘declination reasons.’’ Currently, Title IV uses 

the declination reasons set forth in Title I. H.R. 4347 would change the declination 

reasons for Title IV to the declination reasons provided in Title V. 6 This is problematic because the declination reasons in Title V may work for health care programs 

but do not necessarily work well for programs administered by the Department. The 

four declinations permitted under Title V include: 

1. If the ‘‘the amount of funds proposed in the final offer exceeds the applicable 

funding level to which the Indian tribe is entitled under this part,’’ or

2. If the ‘‘the program, function, service or activity (or portion thereof) that is 

the subject of the final offer is an inherent Federal function that cannot legally be delegated to an Indian tribe’’

3. If the or ‘‘the Indian tribe cannot carry out the program, function, service, 

or activity (or portion thereof) in a manner that would not result in significant 

danger or risk to the public health’’ or

4. If ‘‘the Indian tribe is not eligible to participate in self-governance.’’ 7

The Secretary, in analyzing tribal government’s proposals to carry out programs, 

may have valid grounds, beyond these four declination reasons, for rejecting the 

tribal government’s final offer. The Secretary may determine, for example, that the 

final offer does not adequately fulfill the mission of the non-BIA bureau or office. 

The Title V declination reasons do not acknowledge such a concern. 

In fact, the first declination reason in Title V does not apply to non-BIA programs, 

where there is no ‘‘applicable funding level to which the Indian tribe is entitled.’’ 

Moreover, the third declination reason in Title V permits declination only if the proposed manner of carrying out the non-BIA program would ‘‘result in significant danger or risk to the public health.’’ While that may be a valid criterion for evaluating 

tribal proposals to assume health care programs from IHS, it is an inadequate criterion for evaluating tribal proposals to assume programs to construct dams or irrigation projects, survey endangered species or to administer national parks. The only 

declination reasons that H.R. 4347 offers to non-BIA bureaus and offices are that 

the tribal government proposes to assume an inherently Federal function or that the 

tribe is not eligible to participate in self-governance. This severe limitation on the 

Secretary’s ability to reject a tribe’s final offer deprives the Secretary of the necessary authority to influence how Federal programs that are not for the benefit of 

Indians because of their status as Indians are to be carried out. 

Other provisions that the Department finds problematic include, but are not limited to: 

Section 405. Funding Agreements

The Department is concerned with the reduced ability for the Secretary to provide adequate safeguards, particularly in construction carried out for Title I eligible programs by non-BIA bureaus. When Reclamation is responsible for the 

construction of, or major repairs to, a large dam, whether the effort is carried 

out under Title IV or otherwise, the Secretary should have the flexibility to require reasonable measures to ensure tribal and public safety. To address this, 

Section 405(b)(3) should be modified to closely parallel Section 405(b)(2) providing the Secretary the discretion to require additional terms for construction 

13

under Section 408, especially when there are potential health and safety concerns or post-construction Secretarial liabilities or responsibilities, such as liability under the Safety of Dams Act.

Section 407. Provisions related to the Secretary

Section 407(d)(2) requires the Secretary to show by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for rejecting a final offer from a tribal government. This 

heightened burden of proof handicaps the Secretary’s ability to negotiate agreements with tribal governments that best fulfill the missions of non-BIA bureaus 

and offices. This burden should be ‘‘by a preponderance of the evidence.’’

Section 408. Construction

The legislation should be clarified to state that specific construction provisions 

under Section 408 provisions in Section 405 (Funding Agreements), Section 406 

(General Provisions) and Section 409 (Payment).

Construction projects can vary from very simple to very complex. Thus the minimum amount of oversight, reviews and inspections should be subject to negotiations for each project. As such we recommend that the minimum amounts be 

removed from the legislation.

Section 413. Funding Needs.

The Department expressed concern with this provision in its testimony on June 

9, 2010. As a result, the House Natural Resources Committee made slight 

changes to this section. Nonetheless, the Department remains concerned with 

this provision because it could potentially limit the discretion of the Secretary 

to reallocate funds among different programs as a result of changing priorities 

and the emergence of new critical needs. Furthermore, identifying shortfalls 

could make the Department vulnerable to lawsuits for the identified funding 

shortfalls.

Conclusion 

While we appreciate the effort made to address some of the concerns raised by 

the Department, we continue to have significant concerns with the bill. In particular, given the breadth of the Department’s responsibilities, this legislation could 

significantly hinder the Department’s ability to accomplish its statutory mandates 

through its multiple bureaus and offices by limiting Secretarial discretion and allowing for the transfer of certain functions that should appropriately be maintained at 

the Federal level. We would like to continue to work with this Committee and tribal 

governments to expand compacting opportunities and improve our program. 

On a broader note, I would like to reiterate this Administration’s commitment to 

restoring the integrity of the government-to-government relationship with Indian 

tribal governments. Many challenges face our Native American communities. This 

Administration is committed to working with this Committee and with tribal governments so that, together, we can create opportunities for these communities to 

thrive and flourish. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen, welcome. Ron Allen is the Tribal 

Chairman and CEO of James S’Klallam Tribe, the Chairman of the 

Board of the Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal 

Consortium, and a couple of other chairmanships. You have been 

very active, and you have been in front of this Committee many 

times. We appreciate your coming back. 

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

JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, 

SELF–GOVERNANCE COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION 

TRIBAL CONSORTIUM; AND CHAIRMAN, TITLE IV—DOI 

AMENDMENTS TRIBAL WORKGROUP; ACCOMPANIED BY: 

GEOFFREY STROMMER, PARTNER, HOBBS, STRAUSS, DEAN 

AND WALKER 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators. I definitely 

appreciate the opportunity to come and testify on this self-governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:46 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 065293 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\65293.TXT JACK
14

ance legislation. I too share the Indian Country’s deep appreciation 

for your leadership. So we thank you, and you heard our deep appreciation to you when you talked to us at NCAI. We definitely are 

looking forward to working with you further after you move on to 

the next chapter in your career. 

Self-governance is one of the best success stories of the Federal 

Government with respect to advancing tribal sovereignty. Senator 

Franken made the comment about the Minnesota tribes saying 

start with sovereignty and move from there. Yes, we are sovereign 

governments. 

How do you implement the sovereignty in terms of advancing the 

interests of our people? This legislation started in its pilot phase 

in 1988. And yes, my tribe was one of them. Now, we have 260 or 

so tribes in the BIA, 330 some odd tribes in IHS. It is a movement. 

And it is not a program. There is one thing you need to understand: it is not a program. It is implementing our governmental authority over all programs that we serve our community. We are acting as governments. 

We are no longer contracting with you because of some treaty obligation or some moral or ethical obligation you have to the Indian 

people of this Nation. We are governments, and we have always 

been governments. What we want is control over our destiny. We 

want control over our ability to become self-reliant again. We always were in historical times and we want to be here in modern 

times, in the 21st century. 

We have nothing but success. I could be waving a book that we 

wrote with all kinds of examples, from Alaska to Florida, crisscrossing Indian Country, of the success of self-governance. 

So this legislation is simply an amendment, a technical amendment, to require the Federal Government, in terms of how we are 

able to negotiate with them and to take over these Federal programs that are intended for the benefit of our tribes and our people. That is what this is about. 

I appreciate your accepting our testimony. We have addressed a 

lot of the issues that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department 

of Interior have raised. We feel we have answered it. This subject 

matter, for this amendment, for Title IV, has been going on for 10 

years. And we deeply appreciate the fact that we are really close, 

finally close to matching in principle the Title V and moving the 

agenda forward. 

I think it is important to recognize, as we talk about these different issues within this legislation, this amending legislation, that 

we have worked diligently with the Committee on both the Republican side and the Democratic leadership staff, as well as the Administration. To the credit of George Skibine and his leadership, 

we have gotten a lot of traction on this over the last year and a 

half or so. That is good. A lot of those issues are off the plate. 

There were a lot of them. We have spent countless hour working 

through these issues. 

I am a little frustrated as I hear issues that I felt that we put 

to rest that are back here on the table. We don’t feel they should 

be. Our answer to that real quick question would be that we urge 

that the Committee actually consider that we feel we have answered these questions and issues that are being raised by the BuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:46 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 065293 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\65293.TXT JACK
15

reau, because the majority of this is the BIA and not the non-BIA. 

And if there are legitimate issues that the Administration wants to 

raise, then we feel we can come back in a technical amendment 

and correct it. 

You have never passed a perfect bill. It has never happened in 

the history of America. So why is it that we have to have the perfect bill to address Indian Country? Why is it? We have consistently said to you that we are the most regulated people of America. 

Why is that? Why do we have to have a higher standard in terms 

of how the Federal Government meets its obligations to our communities? 

So when you talk about the final determination, we just want a 

very clear determination on in terms of when we negotiate. You 

have an obligation to get back to us. With regard to Prompt Payment Act, well, quite frankly, yes, 10 days, IHS can do it. We have 

over a billion dollars that are contracted out with the tribes. They 

do it, and you have the Prompt Payment Act. So it is not 10 days, 

it is 10 days plus 14 days. So there is no reason why you can’t get 

the money. 

We carry those Federal programs out. So we have to go borrow 

money to carry out Federal functions. I don’t see you giving us any 

recourse on that issue. So we will get the money to you when we 

can get the money to you, but meanwhile, you guys go out there 

and do your job that you are supposed to be doing. 

So there are those kinds of issues that are out there. Reporting 

requirements, the Federal Government and its agencies report to 

you all the time. All we are doing is asking them to report to you 

how well this program is being administered and implemented. We 

think it is very reasonable that the stuff that we are asking with 

regard to self-governance is being admitted into the record. 

I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I am definitely here to answer questions. As a chairman of one of the lead tribes, I am very 

dedicated to making this happen. I am very dedicated to finding 

common ground. Indian Country knows common ground is essential for success. All we want to do is keep moving this agenda forward to allow us to move our agenda forward to take care of our 

future generations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

16

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

S’KLALLAM TRIBE; CHAIRMAN, SELF-GOVERNANCE COMMUNICATION AND

EDUCATION TRIBAL CONSORTIUM; AND CHAIRMAN, TITLE IV—DOI AMENDMENTS

TRIBAL WORKGROUP


1118a1.eps
17


1118a2.eps
18


1118a3.eps
19


1118a4.eps
20


1118a5.eps
21


1118a6.eps
22


1118b1.eps
23


1118b2.eps
24


1118b3.eps
25


1118b4.eps
26

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen, thank you very much. 

Finally, we will hear from the honorable Will Micklin, who is the 

First Vice-President of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida 

Tribes of Alaska in Juneau, Alaska. Mr. Micklin, thank you very 

much. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILL MICKLIN, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT, 

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS TRIBES 

OF ALASKA 

Mr. MICKLIN. Greetings from Alaska. My name is Will Micklin, 

my Tlingit name is Yaan Yaan Eesh. I am of the Wolf Tribe, 

Teikweidee Clan of the Kaat Hit House of the Tongass Tribe of 

Ketchikan. I am a Sealaska shareholder and a member of the Alaska Native Brotherhood Camp 14. 

I am elected Vice-President of the Central Council of Tlingit 

Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, federally-recognized tribe from 

Southeast Alaska with 28,000 enrolled members. Our 18 communities in Southeast Alaska span Hydaburg in the south of Prince 

of Wales Island to Yakutat near Mt. Saint Elias in the north. Our 

headquarters are in Juneau, Alaska. 

I am an eight-term tribal Assemblyman and two terms on the 

Executive Council. Today I am Acting President in place of President Edward Thomas, who is outside the Country on vacation. 

Tribal self-governance is a goal for which the Congress and Indian tribes long have expressed strong support. Amending Federal 

law to increase tribal self-governance authority creates many benefits for all parties involved, ranging from reduced reporting costs 

to increased program flexibility and innovation and implementation. 


1118b5.eps
27

The key to meaningful tribal self-governance is the respect for 

the capacity of tribal governments to carry out Federal functions 

and implement Federal policies. If it is authentic, a Federal policy 

that honors government to government relations with Indian tribes 

is one that trusts the corrections inherent in elected tribal leadership. Tribal accountability and effectiveness is enhanced if Federal 

officials properly restrain their role in tribal self-governance. All of 

this improves the services delivered to our people. 

Central Council is deeply invested in making tribal self-governance a success. In 1987, Central Council was among the initial 

group of 10, the so-called demonstration tribes, who worked with 

the Congress to draft what became the self-governance statute. 

Central Council’s President Thomas, along with Chairman Ron 

Allen here today, shaped the original law at each stage of its development, from the study and planning language in the fiscal year 

1988 appropriations bill to the Title III demonstration language 

that originated with this Committee in the early 1990s to Title IV, 

which likewise originated here in 1994. 

Tlingit and Haida was the first tribe to enter into a multi-agency 

agreement under Public Law 103–477, more or less the son of selfgovernance, which allowed us to consolidate employment and training funding from various Federal sources into a single, coordinated 

tribal program. We are proud of the active role our tribe has been 

able to play in the movement toward expanded self-governance, 

and our people are eager to make every contribution we can toward 

furthering that movement. 

In 1992, our initial compact and funding agreement, one of the 

first in the Country, and the first in Alaska, completely closed an 

entire agency office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and transferred 

its funding and responsibility to Central Council and other tribes 

in our region. Where the BIA employees before delivered our services, we assumed responsibility to serve ourselves. Central Council 

did step into the shoes of the Federal Government. 

Ours was the very first multi-tribal compact that provided, by 

mutual agreement, with some of the IRA tribes in Southeast Alaska, Central Council administration of programs that directly benefitted these tribes and their tribal members. For the past 25 years, 

Central Council has pushed hard to see self-governance fulfill its 

promise of devolving paternal Federal power and conveying resources to the tribal government level where they can be exercised 

most efficiently and cost-effectively with the greatest accountability 

to the tribal citizen and public taxpayer. In our experience, tribal 

self-governance is the cure for debilitating Federal dependence, giving rise to healthy tribal governments that fulfill the promise of 

self-sufficiency. 

Tlingit Haida’s experience with tribal self-governance has not 

been without challenges. An unfounded fear on the part of the Federal bureaucracy has fueled bureaucrats’ constant battles with 

tribes’ advance guard in negotiations of our agreements and battles 

with our rear guard to compel bureaucrats to honor our agreements. Rules have been changed by Federal officials arbitrarily and 

capriciously, without notice or consultation. Negotiations have simply stalled without end or consequence for bad faith actions. 

28

Payments have been delayed for months and years. For example, 

between 1996 and 2000, Interior failed to deliver to us a total of 

$953,781 in contract support cost funding that its own negotiators, 

in applying the Uniform Federal Rules, had determined were due 

us for our operation of BIA-funded programs. We had to meet the 

shortfall with earnings from our tribal trust fund. Using tribal 

trust fund dollars to meet Federal contractual obligations resulted 

in lost opportunities to address the many problems facing our people. Every year, Interior has failed to delivery timely the funding 

it agreed to deliver, forcing us to borrow funds n order to meet even 

our basic payroll obligations. 

We have to fight every step of the way, because the law provides 

very little language to a tribe and oceans of discretion to the Federal bureaucrats that enable them to delay, obstruct, frustrate and 

eventually diminish tribal initiatives. These fights are costly for us 

in terms of time, money and opportunity. The delays in time and 

loss of opportunity for our tribal self-help efforts are so significant 

that we are compelled to seek a fix for each problem. 

Tlingit Haida joined with other tribes over the past 10 years to 

shape and reshape this bill to blunt objections from wave after 

wave of Federal bureaucrats. We began a decade ago with what we 

thought would be a simple task of asking Congress to replicate the 

law reforms regarding health self-governance, which Congress imposed on the Indian Health Service in Title V in the year 2000. If 

it worked for IHS, why not for BIA? That remains our central message. 

And it is the basis of our request today. We have worked for 

years with each Administration to pare down this bill to the bare 

minimum. Today the House-passed bill reflects great compromise 

on the part of tribes. We have conceded point after point to the Interior Department. 

If there are any changes to the House-passed H.R. 4347, which 

the Senate or the Department believe are necessary, they can be 

made in the form of technical amendments next year after enactment of this bill this year, but not now. It is imperative that in the 

coming days, the Senate pass and send on to the President the 

House-passed H.R. 4347. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to present this testimony 

on behalf of Central Council and its tribal citizens we serve. We 

commend you and this very distinguished Committee for the valuable time you are dedicating to this very important issue in the 

final hours of Congress. 

On a personal note, and on behalf of President Ed Thomas, I 

thank you, Chairman Dorgan, for your years of service and commitment that you have given to Indian Country, among your other 

commitments in the United States Senate. Your dedication and 

that of your most able staff will be long-remembered. And as you 

leave for us in Indian Country a legacy of significant accomplishments, including, I hope, Senate passage of H.R. 4347, I wish you 

well as you move on to ever-greater success and personal satisfaction. Tribal self-governance is the single most important Federal 

Indian law reform that I have seen in my lifetime. I hope you and 

29

your colleagues see fit to lay H.R. 4347 on the President’s desk for 

signature into law before the end of this year. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Micklin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILL MICKLIN, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT, CENTRAL

COUNCIL OF TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES OF ALASKA


1118c1.eps
30


1118c2.eps
31


1118c3.eps
32

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Micklin, thank you very much. That too is 

my hope. My hope is that we are able to move on this legislation. 

We will have several weeks, perhaps, in December in the lame 

duck session. My hope is that we will resolve whatever remaining 

controversy exists and pass this legislation. This is a very important piece of legislation. 

Mr. Skibine, you have come before this Committee in many different ways. I was thinking as you were speaking of the times 

when Senator McCain was Chairman and I was Vice Chairman 

and you would come, and I actually felt sorry for you from time to 

time. You are smart, you are dedicated, but you would come to us 

and you would have to explain to us why things weren’t happening 

when we were told they were going to happen. 

You explained to me one day in a hearing why, after 17 years, 

there were not yet rules and regulations on off-reservation gaming. 

And I said, I don’t understand, 17 years? I can understand missing 

things by a month or a week or perhaps a year. But 17 years? 

A couple of years ago, actually five years ago, on the issue of 

Federal recognition, you came to this Committee and indicated that 

you felt that you would move forward on rules and regulations on 

the issue of tribal recognition, Federal recognition of Indian tribes. 

And I think two years ago you said to us that you had specific 

ideas moving through the pipeline. 

I tell you that because that is why it seems to me those who wish 

to advance the interests of self-determination and make it work are 

not persuaded at all that they can be protected, unless in law we 

impose time limits on Interior. They have simply experienced unacceptable practices with respect to not getting things done. 


1118c4.eps
33

So when I asked you during your testimony specifically to tell me 

what are the differences and what do you object to, and you went 

through the list of being required to by 60 days, being required to 

by 90 days, being required to in a certain period of time to develop 

rule and regulations, I thought, well, man, I am on their side on 

that. I would want to require you too as well. 

So give me, if you can, the defense of the Department in meeting 

time deadlines, in doing things necessary in a timely way. We appreciate working with you, but this Committee has never been very 

impressed with the glacial pace of the Department on a whole 

range of issues. 

Mr. SKIBINE. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. First, I want to say, 

we did pass off-reservation gaming regulations. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I know why you passed them, because we 

put a lot of heat on the chair you were sitting on. When I asked 

the question, why has it taken 17 years, but I appreciate the fact 

that once we prodded and prodded, it got done. 

Mr. SKIBINE. Yes, that is true. And we are very close on moving 

forward on Federal acknowledgment regulations, amending that, 

too. So that was a pledge that hopefully we can fulfill before too 

long. 

On the time frame, I think that we in Indian Affairs, we have 

a time frame. Because usually the funding agreements include the 

declination criteria in Title I, which is a 90-day time frame. I think 

what we wanted it to be is to stay consistent with what the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs does now with respect to self-determination contracts. 

The problem I think we are concerned with for the time frame 

is because often, if the documents or the proposal goes somewhere 

where it is not supposed to go, another agency, and does not reach 

the Office of Self-Governance, then we will have a problem in that, 

by the time we get it, we might have much fewer time. And that 

I think is something that, first of all, I have certainly experienced 

that with the approval of compacts on gaming, where we have 45 

days, and if not, it is deemed approved. 

And if that is sent to an agency or it is misplaced somewhere, 

we can altogether miss it. And in fact, we did that, and it got us 

into a lot of hot water with respect to some California compacts a 

few years ago. 

So we prefer, just to be on the safe side, to have a longer time 

frame. I think overall with respect to the 90 days that self-determination contracts operate on, that pretty much has worked. Right, 

Sharee? 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, but the only point I am making, I won’t go 

beyond this, is that I have sat here in this chair, and my colleagues 

have as well. I know that on tribal recognition, you have applications down there from 25 years ago that have never been acted on. 

On the issue of taking land into trust, you have things down there 

that have been sitting on your desk for 15 years with no action. 

And I have had to hold hearings to find out what is going on. 

So the only point I am making is, the objections you raised about 

imposing time deadlines on the Interior Department come from a 

long line of failures of the Department proceeding expeditiously to 

make thoughtful and constructive judgments about issues that 

34

have been presented to it. So I really think that the record that has 

been compiled, I don’t want to injure your opportunity to make the 

right decision. But the evidence suggests that it takes far too long 

in virtually every area. 

So to the extent that we pass legislation, the House already has, 

to the extent that we pass legislation, if there are really substantive objections other than, this is going to press us to have to 

move ahead with some dispatch, that is not much of an objection 

to me. I say, do it, do it right and do it expeditiously so that we 

can get some answers on some of these issues. 

I have a couple of other questions as well, but I have to step in 

the back to take a conference call. It is only going to take about 

eight minutes, but it is very important. One of my two colleagues 

will chair, just for a moment. Senator Tester indicated he would be 

willing to chair. 

Let me call on Senator Cantwell to inquire and then Senator 

Tester will follow, and I will be back to ask additional questions. 

Senator Tester, thank you very much. Senator Cantwell, why don’t 

you proceed. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Allen, in the Northwest we have some of the first 

tribes, as I mentioned, to be included in the program. We also have 

tribes that want the compact to be more flexible, as you were discussing. But they haven’t because of those barriers that exist in 

Title IV. 

What do you think is the number one barrier to tribes in thinking about taking over those BIA functions under Title IV? And how 

does the legislation help us with that? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for always being 

supportive of our effort on self-governance. Of our 29 tribes in 

Washington State, I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 

18 to 20 of them are self-governance. There are a couple who are 

wanting to negotiate. 

But if there is an impediment, the subject matter that Mr. 

Skibine is raising is one of the examples of the final determination. 

We go into negotiations, we identify what we think is our fair share 

in each of these categories and negotiate until either we get to a 

common ground or we get a difference of opinion, and then we 

make a final offer. 

If we don’t have a definitive time frame for them to respond to 

us, or to decline it, then it doesn’t allow us to move in negotiation 

forward. So on the one hand, we have less, I think we have less 

trouble in the Northwest than some of our sister tribes elsewhere 

in terms of identifying what the numbers are. But that is a big 

issue. We would say to you that on this declination time frame, 

over at IHS, theirs is 45 days. And they wanted the 90 too, then 

they wanted 60. And we appealed to you for 45. You concurred 

with us. It has not been a problem over there. 

The issue is that the law allows for us to mutually extend it if 

we require more time. So sometimes you get caught up in the dates 

and the time frames, and it is more the legal argument coming 

from the Department or the Administration than it is necessarily 

the programmatic people. Because we have worked out many of 

these issues. 

35

But that declination process and burden of proof are issues that 

help us move the agenda forward. So if you look at the 260 tribes 

that are in today and ask, why aren’t there more, why aren’t more 

jumping in, this is part of the problem. It is the process and the 

definitive requirements of the Department to negotiate with the 

tribes and respond to us, so that we can move the negotiations forward. 

Senator CANTWELL. Could you describe what you think self-governance has meant economically, how many jobs have been created, 

what it has done for the economic opportunities within Indian 

Country? 

Mr. ALLEN. I always refer to self-governance as empowering the 

tribes to move our governmental affairs forward to serve our people. A good example would be my tribe. When we negotiated back 

in the early 1990s, when the law became permanent, we negotiated 

for a number that probably had had us at around a very small staff 

of 35 or so FTEs. Over the years, we have taken on more and more 

programs, and we probably increased our base by maybe 30 percent 

or something along that line. 

But today, because of the flexibility of self-governance and the 

ability to move these resources and leverage these resources, our 

budget has increased exponentially. We currently have a staff of 

around 180 people. Our economic development has flourished as a 

result of our ability to move money into categories that will allow 

us to plan and develop economic development, plan and development programs that serve our community, leverage other resources 

that are out there, whether it is Federal or State or private sector, 

to allow us to expand our governmental base. 

So our governmental base, because of self-governance, which is 

simply a base, rarely for most of us it is a small component of our 

base, but it has allowed us to leverage and increase jobs and create 

stability, which is, for us, it has increased jobs, but it has also stabilized our FTEs with our operation. 

Senator CANTWELL. What do you think that is, time, predictability? What elements allowed you to use self-governance to grow 

economically? What attributes of that? Is it predictability? Is it the 

ability to plan and be able to jump on economic opportunities in a 

more rapid fashion? 

Mr. ALLEN. It is mostly the flexibility of the resources. The Federal Government historically has categorized where they feel that 

the tribes need assistance. They have all these different categories 

of where these resources can be available. And historically, it is 

like a silo. So you can only use these monies for this program or 

that program or that program or that program, A, B, C, D. Then 

it did not allow the tribes to use those monies where they really 

needed them or how they could use them with more creativity to 

be able to expand our operation. 

That is probably the greatest benefit. So if we need to develop 

our political or legal infrastructure to create economic development 

on our reservation, so it creates better certainty for the private sector to conduct business on an Indian reservation, then the infrastructure is that certainty they are looking for, the due recourse 

with regard to investment on a tribal reservation. It allowed us to 

use monies that we may not, that were dedicated for one area, we 

36

can use it for another area more effectively, to advance that particular program. 

Often, I do want to footnote here, a lot of people were concerned, 

including people in our respective communities, you are going to 

take natural resources, you are going to put it over in economic development. You are going to take social and community monies and 

you are going to put it over in economic development. So you are 

going to undermine those programs and services, education and so 

forth. 

That is not what has happened. If you look at all our different 

programs, you will see they have been enhanced. But it is little 

kinds of tweaks that allow us that flexibility in how we use those 

resources, relative to the other resources that are available to the 

tribe, to allow us to advance economic development and other agenda items, including cultural enhancement. Cultural enhancement, 

which has always been very difficult for tribes to restore and preserve and advance, and those programs have flourished immensely. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. [Presiding] Mr. Skibine, I want to follow up a 

little bit on what the Chairman was talking about. You had expressed some concern for the time frames in the bill and the accountability, you didn’t say this, I did, the accountability that those 

time frames are going to require if passed. I just want to reiterate 

that the record is there, you are not the only agency, by the way, 

there are others, but the record is there to indicate that we in the 

legislative branch of Government need to do something to make 

sure that things get done. 

And I don’t know if it falls on you or people you supervise or people above you that supervise. But quite honestly, I think the reason 

that language is in here is because there are plenty of examples 

to show that we haven’t moved like we should. 

Now, I know the last Administration didn’t fill a lot of positions 

that needed to be filled. But we are not in the last Administration 

any more. We are in this Administration. I think they have done 

a good job of filling and putting some good quality people, yourself 

included, in the Department. 

I have a question for you, not related to that, but others. I am 

just saying, it is not going away. There is no reason that Indian 

tribes should have to suffer because we have people in the agencies 

that aren’t buckled down and getting after it. 

The bill includes a provision to require the Secretary to negotiate 

in good faith. Isn’t that required in every negotiation that Government enters in? Why is that language specifically in here? Can you 

give me an idea? 

Mr. SKIBINE. Well, of course, it is a requirement for the Department and the Government to negotiate in good faith. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. SKIBINE. So I am not sure why that provisions would be in 

there. 

Senator TESTER. Are you aware of any violations where your 

agency did not negotiate in good faith? 

Mr. SKIBINE. No. 

Senator TESTER. How about you, Mr. Allen? Do you know why 

that is in there? 

37

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. It will vary from region to region, but with selfgovernance, it is about transferring Federal functions to the tribal 

government. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. Go ahead, keep going. 

Mr. ALLEN. But the Federal Government does not want to let go. 

The reality is, it doesn’t want to let go of those programs. It believes it is essential to protect our interests. 

The problem is that, George referred earlier to the inherent Federal functions, or essential governmental functions that only the 

Federal Government can administer, versus what we can administer. Now the question for a tribe, we are negotiating in good faith, 

we want them to put the numbers on the table and the programs 

that we should have access to in good faith, so that we can actually 

negotiate for the numbers. If they resist, or they don’t provide us 

the information, or they withhold information, how can we negotiate in good faith? We don’t know what we are negotiating for. 

Senator TESTER. But this provision requires the Secretary to negotiate in good faith. You are going to negotiate in good faith, the 

Secretary is going to negotiate in good faith. I just don’t understand why that language is in there. I just don’t get it. I think it 

is a given, that is all. 

We talked about non-BIA programs, the BOR in particular was 

concerned about their ability to monitor. Is there some contracts 

that have gone awry? Is it just that they don’t want to, and I know 

you can’t answer for BOR or any other agency outside of yours, but 

is it just what Mr. Allen said, that they don’t want to give up, they 

want to keep their finger on it? Or is there a reason? Is there some 

examples where there has been——

Mr. SKIBINE. I don’t think there are some examples. But I think 

that essentially, what I think the Bureau of Reclamation feels is 

that building dams may be very different from building detention 

facilities. Whereas in Indian Affairs, our director of facilities I 

think is comfortable with the provisions in the current bill, I think 

in BOR, they feel that they need more input. 

Senator TESTER. I want to give either Mr. Micklin or Mr. Allen 

an opportunity to respond to that. Because building a dam is different than building a detention facility or school or whatever it 

might be. Do you want to respond to that, either one of you? 

Mr. ALLEN. I will lead off, and then Willie can add to the response. First of all, when we first began this negotiation, we wanted clarifications on the non-BIA agencies with regard to what our 

ability to access those resources are. It became too complicated and 

political, quite frankly. So we chose to step away from the non-BIA 

agencies and left it as the current law is. So the majority of this 

bill, 90 percent of this bill, if not more, is in the BIA and not the 

non-BIA. 

But going to your point, the compacts that currently exist with 

Bureau of Reclamation, Land Management, Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, there aren’t very many of them, because it has been very 

difficult for us to negotiate those compacts. They have been very 

resistant to that happening. But there have been no problems that 

we know of, no managerial mismanagement problems. Every one 

that the tribe has taken over has been run exceptionally well with 

38

no discernible problems at all. But that arena is very difficult for 

us to penetrate. 

On construction, there are very clear requirements to meet the 

Federal standards and the EPA requirements. 

Senator TESTER. Can I ask what happens if you don’t meet those 

standards? 

Mr. ALLEN. Just like any other contract, it stops until you meet 

the requirement. 

Senator TESTER. All right, sounds good. 

Mr. Micklin, do you want to respond to that, about non-BIA 

agencies, and if there has been problems in your neck of the woods? 

Mr. MICKLIN. I can say that in H.R. 4347, the tribes have conceded this point, in that there is no mandatory contracting provisions in here. This is almost entirely a BIA bill. But our contacts 

with the non-BIA agencies, when we have approached them about 

doing those things that come naturally to us with our historical expertise, our cultural ties and affinity with public lands, they have 

looked back to us across the table as though they were stricken. 

And our feeling is that they are very jealous of their discretion 

and they are wanting to retain their inherent discretion to do what 

they like with their own programs, and not bother with tribes who 

are trying to contract programs and services that not only benefit 

the Federal Government by accomplishing those works, as well as 

any other Federal contractor or the public agency, but benefit the 

tribe and the tribal citizens as well. 

So we think there is much to be gained down the road with additional contracting. But we have let them keep their discretion, because it is not part of H.R. 4347 today. I wish it was, but it is not. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. ALLEN. Can I add one more point? On this topic, in construction, which confuses a lot of people, the way the current law reads 

and the way the current regulations read, and these amendments 

allow for the resumption. If an agency, BOR, has gone awry and 

we are not meeting certain standards, then they can reassume it. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, very good point. First of all, I want to 

thank the witnesses for testifying today, and your answers to the 

questions. I, as the Chairman has expressed, would love to see this 

get done now. I think it is important. I think any time we can empower Indian Country, it is beneficial to everybody. And I think it 

is a decent bill. 

Although you say it may not be perfect, Mr. Allen, you are right, 

it may not be perfect. But with the exception of the ones I write, 

that is always the way it is. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. I would just say, remind you that the record 

will remain open for two weeks for further comments. I look forward to working with the Chairman and with the folks on this 

panel and others to get this bill across the finish line. 

With that, we will adjourn the hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BOREN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OKLAHOMA

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Members of the Indian Affairs Committee: 

Thank you for setting this House-passed legislation for hearing. I hope it leads 

to greater understanding of this very important piece of legislation. The issue of 

Tribal Self-Governance is crucial to many Indian tribes, but as a Representative of 

more than 200,000 Native Americans it is personal to me. I’ve devoted many hours 

to shaping and pushing this legislation through the House process, and discussing 

with tribal representatives and Department of the Interior officials the changes that 

were needed to remove objections and get it passed. I hope the Senate will now see 

fit to pass it before the year’s end and send it on to the President for signature into 

law. 

H.R. 4347 amends Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 to provide greater legal authority to Native American tribes as 

they pursue, at each tribe’s option, tribal self-governance. It transfers authority and 

responsibility from the federal program bureaucracy to the tribal program administration. This bill gives tribes the ability to better negotiate with the Department of 

the Interior, strengthening the self-governance program and eliminating wasteful 

practices in the Federal Government. 

The self-determination approach was born in the late 1980s upon the revelation 

that only a small percentage of federal money appropriated for the benefit of Indian 

country actually made it out of the bureaucracy and into the hands of the tribes. 

The result was a myriad of well-intentioned approaches that culminated in 1994 

with the birth of Title IV of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance 

Act. Title IV was enacted to accomplish three primary goals: (1) to place the Federal 

Government’s Indian programs firmly in the hands of the local Indian people being 

served; (2) to enhance and empower local tribal governments and their governmental institutions; and (3) to correspondingly reduce the federal bureaucracy. Title 

IV was designed to reduce federal micromanagement and to empower tribes, at their 

choosing, by giving them the control necessary to maximize the services to their people. We now have an opportunity to amend the language of this program to more 

efficiently and effectively run the self-governance program. 

The self-governance program has been a tremendous success for participating 

tribes across the country. In 2004 the Government Accountability Office noted in a 

prepared report on Indian economic development that those tribes that participated 

in self-governance programs had greater gains in employment levels from 1990 to 

2000. Through years of rule making and implementation, it is clear that self-governance works, and works well. 

The self-governance program has worked so well, in fact, that many of its principles were applied to the Indian Health Services Title V program. The result of 

that application has been higher quality medical access, lower costs, and more efficiency. Despite all the evidence that the principles of Title V work, the Federal Government has yet to make them applicable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Title IV 

program. H.R. 4347 brings parity between the two programs, applying lessons 

learned in Title V to the relevant areas of Title IV. It will streamline the self-governance system and eliminate wasteful spending on the part of the Federal Government. 

The core principles of this bill are simple. First, tribal sovereignty and the right 

of a nation to control its own destiny is the most efficient approach to federal spending dollars. It takes money out of government bureaucracy and puts it directly in 

the hands of the Indian Tribes, allowing them to create jobs and invest in the infrastructure from which we all benefit. Second, the enormous rewards that come from 

allowing local control over local programs far outweigh the concerns about paring 

down government control. These points, in addition to the fact that H.R. 4347 gives 

Indian Tribes more control of their own destiny, make it an immensely important 

piece of legislation. 

40

H.R. 4347 is the result of years of negotiation between many concerned parties 

and stands to benefit both the Indian Tribes and the Federal Government. In fact, 

this bill reflects significant compromise on the part of both the tribes and the Federal Government. To quote the late, great Cherokee Nation Chief Wilma Mankiller, 

‘‘The success of self-governance has been nothing short of astounding.’’ I sincerely 

hope that we can work together to improve and protect this landmark program. 

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of this Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement to your committee. I look 

forward to working with you to see that the amendments to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistant Tribal Self-Governance Act, which is of great importance to Indian Country, are soon enacted into law. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. REFFALT, VICE PRESIDENT/ISSUES

COORDINATOR, BLUE GOOSE ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the Blue 

Goose Alliance (BGA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony for the 

record regarding H.R. 4347, a bill to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and for other purposes. We confine our comments 

to the provisions in Title 4 affecting Annual Funding Agreements (AFAs) with nonBIA agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

We make note that testimony given on behalf of the Department of the Interior 

raised serious concerns regarding the non-BIA portion of H.R. 4347 but they did not 

elaborate on those concerns. The primary concerns of the BGA were made known 

to the committee prior to the November hearing conducted on the bill. We requested 

that the bill be amended to 1) remove the definition stated in Section 401(7) and, 

2) delete the provisions contained in Section 411 of H.R. 4347 and insert the disclaimer language from Section 403(k) of the current Self-Governance Act. 

The requested amendments would retain current law, which provisions were inserted in 1994 as a safeguard of the public interest in assuring that inherently federal functions of the U.S. Government would remain fully under control of federal 

officials charged by law to implement them and, in addition, that when the laws 

governing the missions and functions of the agencies to be involved in an ISDEAA 

Annual Funding Agreement do not permit the type of agreement provisions sought 

by the tribe, then they shall not be allowed. The provisions of H.R. 4347 would insert a new legal standard that, frankly, does not exist in current laws governing 

conservation of lands and renewable resources on the public lands of America. 

Further, the primary law governing the National Wildlife Refuge System was 

modified in 1976 and again in 1997 with restrictions on joint management and delegation of management programs within units of the Refuge System. We believe 

those restrictions are vital to the long-term integrity of the Refuge System and its 

ability to provide a perpetual stream of benefits to the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, the provisions that permit annual funding agreements between 

qualified Indian tribes and non-BIA agencies in the Department of the Interior have 

already resulted in an aggressive implementation within the Department that has 

at times gone beyond having tribal participation in functions, activities, services, 

etc., and delegated a level of control to them that intruded on inherent federal functions, or at a minimum delegated a level of participation that exceeded the intent 

of authorizing legislation of the agency. 

Given that the programs, functions, services and activities involved in the nonBIA agencies were established to benefit all Americans, including Indian peoples, 

it is very important that an appropriate, nationally coordinated federal role is continued. As an example, major programs of the National Wildlife Refuge System involve multiple international treaty obligations that were intended to be fulfilled 

through the operation of the System. Thus, provisions assuring that inherently federal functions remain under full control of federal employees are vital to those longstanding international commitments of our Nation. 

We further believe that the Senate Committees having jurisdiction directly affecting those non-BIA agencies should have continuing opportunities to review provisions in the ISDEAA that could have far-reaching effects on the missions involved 

as well as on the expenditures of appropriated moneys. Inserting a new and additional administrative overhead onto the programs involved in AFAs might bring inefficiencies at a time when all federal expenditures require the closest scrutiny to 

assure maximum efficiency. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Blue Goose Alliance, a private, non-profit organization dedicated to the integrity and welfare of the National Wildlife Refuge System, urges the Committee to restore the protective language it previously inserted 

41

and passed in the non-BIA title of the self-governance statute. We believe the public 

interest would best be served by the amendments we have proposed. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to submit comments. We appreciate your 

efforts to gather information on the proposed bill and hope that our comments are 

received in the constructive and beneficial manner intended. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON L. DORGAN TO

HON. W. RON ALLEN


1118d1.eps
42


1118d4.eps
43

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

HON. W. RON ALLEN


1118d2.eps
44


1118d3.eps
45

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON L. DORGAN TO

WILL MICKLIN


1118e1.eps
46


1118e3.eps
47


1118e2.eps
48


1118e4.eps
49

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

WILL MICKLIN


1118e5.eps
50

* Response to written questions was not available at the time this hearing went to press.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GEORGE SKIBINE * 


1118f1.eps
51


1118f2.eps
52


1118f3.eps
53


1118f4.eps
54


1118f5.eps
55

Æ


1118f6.eps