U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

46–735 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

CONCERNING THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE’S ONGOING

NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

REGARDING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105-65

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 25, 1997 .......................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate to Congress from American

Samoa ............................................................................................................ 4

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Hastings, Hon. Alcee L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 34

Statements of witnesses:

Cohen, Edward B., Deputy Solicitor, Department of the Interior ................ 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Cypress, Hon. Billy, Chairman, The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida ................................................................................................................... 4

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

Lehtinen, Dexter, Attorney, Vargas and Reiner ............................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31
(1)

HEARING ON: THE EVERGLADES PARK CONCERNING THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE’S ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE REGARDING THE SPECIAL

USE PERMIT AREA

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA- TIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RE- SOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public

Lands convenes its oversight hearing to consider ongoing issues between the Miccosukee tribe of Indians in the Everglades National

Park. The Miccosukee tribe once occupied a reservation of approximately a 100,000 acres of land within what is now Everglades National Park. When Congress created the park, the tribe was moved

north to lands they did not historically occupy. However, since 1934

and the creation of the park, the Miccosukee tribe has occupied the

most northern 500 feet of the park along a five-mile stretch of the

Tamiami trail.

The tribe occupies this land under a special use permit issued by

the National Park Service. Unfortunately, the growth needs of the

tribe and the mission of the Park Service have seemed to clash in

recent years. We will hear testimony today to explore the problems

that the tribe faces and will hear the concerns of the administration.

Although legislation has been introduced to basically put the special use permit in law, it is my opinion that this may not be the

best policy. I am concerned that the Department is managing the

Miccosukee Tribe through the Park Service. This is not an appropriate role for the Park Service and this is an issue in other places

across the country. Yet, the Park Service does have the mandate

to protect the resources of the park. It is my hope that the current

negotiations between the two parties will end in a resolution that

benefits all sides.

I look forward to the testimony and hope to have some open dialog to get to the crux of the problem and find a solution. Now, we
2

only have one panel today. And the panel is Mr. Edward B. Cohen,

Deputy Solicitor, Department of the Interior. He’ll be accompanied

by Mr. Dick Ring, Superintendent of the Everglades National Park.

Also, we have the Honorable Billy Cypress, Chairman of the

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Mr. Cypress, if you’d come

up. And we have Dexter Lehtinen—I hope I’m not crucifying that—

who will also be with us today.

Gentlemen, we appreciate you being here. Let me just ask this

question: How much time do you need?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. COHEN, DEPUTY SOLICITOR,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. COHEN. Five to 10 minutes max.

Mr. HANSEN. Five to ten. We have a rule in this House of 5 minutes, but I can see no reason that we wouldn’t bend that a little

bit if you just have a burning in your bosom to talk a little longer

than that. I’ll tell you what. We’ll give you five and if you go over,

don’t feel bad. If you go over ten, however, we’ll feel bad.

Mr. COHEN. I won’t go over ten, you can be sure.

Mr. HANSEN. All right. Well, Mr. Cohen, we’ll start with you, sir.

The floor is yours.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us to testify.

This is actually a very timely point at which to evaluate this relationship because I think that there have been significant developments. I come to you this morning with the hope that we are going

to do exactly what you asked, which is to find a resolution to the

tensions that have existed between the Park Service and the Tribe

over the last several years. Let me begin simply by putting this

issue in context, if I may.

Mr. HANSEN. Talk loud so that we can all hear you.

Mr. COHEN. This is a map of South Florida. This is the park.

This is Tamiami Trial, the northernmost border of the park area

is right here, This 333 acres is occupied by the Tribe. There are

four structures here through which the Army Corps of Engineers

filters the bulk of the water that flows through the Shark Slew.

Two of those structures are immediately adjacent to the Special

Use Permit Area.

So my point for describing this is to put in context the strategic

significance of this parcel of land on which the Tribe lives for the

restoration program that we’re undertaking.

Having said that, let me just briefly also put in context what has

happened over the last 30 years. When the park was established,

it was done so to protect the unique and diverse biosystem of the

Everglades. The legislation also indicated that the Park Service

must accommodate the interests of the Tribe that currently exists

in the area to the extent that their presence does not conflict with

the purposes of the park.

In order to accommodate that, in 1962 the park and the Tribe

entered into the first Special Use permit. That permit allows for

the use and occupancy by the Tribe in the permit area consistent

with the Act of May 30, 1934, which is the Act which established

the Everglades.

The permit was intended to provide for the administrative and

educations facilities of the Tribe and to provide places for the
3

Miccosukee Indians to live, make, and sell handicrafts. It is a 50-

year permit which expires in January of 2014. There have been a

series of permits after that which amended the original permit, but

in essence, the 50-year permit is what we now have.

Since 1962, the Tribe has constructed nearly 200 separate structures on this 333 acres of land. This includes houses, tribal, commercial, and administrative buildings such as schools, a clinic,

gymnasium, and the like. The pace of development and construction, however, is significant to the relationship between the Tribe

and the park. From 1963 to 1990, the Tribe built about 50 houses.

Since 1990, 80 houses have been built, as well as a gymnasium, an

enhanced water tower, and an expanded government center. There

are currently pending over 100 additional fill permits for either

new construction or expansion of existing construction. Of the 333

acres in the Special Use Permit Area, somewhere between 70 and

90 are wetlands that have been filled by the Tribe for development.

This enhanced pace of construction coincides, we believe, with

the improved economic fortunes of the Tribe—and that’s good—

these fortunes stemming, primarily, from a Bingo operation down

the road a piece. But it is this enhanced pace that has caused the

park to pay greater attention to what is being done in the Special

Use Permit Area.

I think that the low point in the relationship between the Tribe

and the park was in the 1994–1996 period when there were lawsuits and nasty rhetoric. But in the past year, I think we’ve made

a lot of progress. We assisted the Tribe in seeking a fair settlement

with the Florida DOT. That settlement was the subject of legislation recently reported by this Committee.

We were able to agree on the construction of 30 new homes that

the Tribe requested. And based on that foundation and these efforts, we have now begun a process to define a new relationship between the Tribe and the park which would acknowledge the Tribe’s

sovereignty, and provide a right to live within the park in perpetuity and at the same time protect the resources of the park. I

look forward to discussing the parameters of what we’re talking

about with the Tribe as we proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you.

Let me point out that if you see those two white lights at the

back, that means that there’s a vote on. And I’ve got a few minutes

to run over and vote. I apologize, but that’s the way it works

around here. And so I intend to come right back and I’ll just run

back and forth and if you’ll all be patient for just a few moments,

I’d appreciate. We’ll stand in recess for a moment.

[Recess.]

Mr. HANSEN. The committee will come to order. We actually had

two votes and so I apologize for keeping you waiting.

We’ve now been joined by the ranking member of the Committee,

Mr. Faleomavaega of the great area—where are you from, anyway?—American Samoa, and he went to BYU and that’s a constant

struggle between Mr. Faleomavaega and myself. We all went to the

University of Utah. So we’ll turn the time to you.
4

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA,

A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is

litigation underway between the Miccosukee Tribe and the National Park Service regarding the construction of certain additional

homes within the Special Use Permit Area that the Miccosukee can

occupy. I would prefer that we not get into matters that are presently under litigation. That would be more appropriate once the

case is resolved. However, I understand that our witnesses are prepared to speak on the broader, more general question of the overall

Special Use Permit, and not focus solely on the pending litigation.

I am encouraged that the Tribe and the Park Service have kept

a dialog going and they are neighbors and I hope and expect will

remain as such for the foreseeable future. I appreciate the presence

of our witnesses today and I look forward to their testimony. Mr.

Chairman, I do apologize for my being a little late this morning.

There’s nothing like being jet lagged after being in the air for some

16 hours and I don’t know whether I’m going or coming. But I appreciate the patience of our friends coming in this morning to testify. I look forward to their testimonies.

Mr. HANSEN. My good friend here has a long way to go when he

goes home, as you can well understand.

We’ve already had Mr. Cohen, the Deputy Solicitor. He has given

his opening remarks.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will he remain here while we hear from the

other witnesses, Mr. Chairman? Or Mr. Cohen?

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You’re not leaving right after your testimony?

Mr. COHEN. Oh, no. I’m not going anywhere.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Now we’re honored to have with us Billy Cypress,

Chairman of the Tribe. Mr. Cypress, we’ll turn the time to you, sir.

If you’d like to pull that mike over, we’d appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF HON. BILLY CYPRESS, CHAIRMAN, THE

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA

Mr. CYPRESS. Thank you, Chairman Hansen and members. I’d

like to say thank you for giving the time to at least come and testify before you. A hearing—what we’re here for is pretty much selfgovernance, self-determination of how we make our living, where

we live, and how our future with growth.

Up to now, it’s been pretty much two standards. one side can

say, ‘‘We don’t do this; we don’t want this,’’ but you see plans; you

see development; you see development before. And the gentleman

that I would like at least to refer and answer quickly before I go

on—that this matter is in court, but the Federal judge himself has

said that, ‘‘I hope it can be resolved here.’’ He’s been sitting on it

for a long time, but he’s referring to see if this happens here;

maybe he can dismiss it.

So it’s almost like being in a merry-go-round. You can only hop

from one horse to another. I’m hoping that this would resolve our

problems, so that way the Federal judge can see and dismiss it.

But he’s been sitting on it for, like I say, going on quite a while.
5

And his remarks was that, ‘‘I hope these can be worked out.’’ And

he says that this is a problem of, would you say, Indian people in

the United States in itself.

And what we’re looking at is this: the United States and Indian

people have a clear understanding, and that through Congress, the

intent and the enactment says that Indian people living there—it’s

the agencies that we have a problem with. That’s reading, interpreting, and every person that could be a superintendent, any solicitor in the future could interpret different.

So what we’re here, and I’m hoping that being before this committee will look and, how would you say, clarify the enactment and

because—and one point, that our Tribe was told that we really

don’t have any growth. Now, where do you start putting growth?

Because the future of our children depends on our forefathers, such

as myself here. So this is why that I hope the gentlemen will take

a second look—because it’s the Federal Court deferring to this committee here back to Congress. So, you know, with it—I, you know,

am kind of honored that you have taken on a busy schedule and

have one panel for us today.

But the problem that we’re having is that Tribe is expected to

uphold the law while other people don’t. And I’m referring to the

park and its interpretation, and as I say this, we follow our traditional law and try to uphold the European law at the same time.

This is why we established Indian court that has two judges—one

to interpret what we call contemporary law, which is the European

law, while traditional is looked on. So we have representation of an

Indian judge and a contemporary judge. And this is the kind of

thing that we work with.

So, but, you know, to be told that we could not have growth, we

could not follow our tradition and traditional law, and traditional—

but under this Secretary of Interior accepting a 1962 Tribal Constitution, that’s pretty much what we’re saying. There is, I would

say, a flagrant violation of Indian law, as well as congressional law,

under the Secretary. This is why we’re here before you today.

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think that we’ve been through

court; we’ve been everywhere else. So now we understand this is

the proper place to come, because Congress is the one that made

the language, and we want that, what we call, clarifying the enactment. So that way, it would be better for the park people and ourselves.

Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Cypress may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.

We’ve been joined by our colleague from Florida, Diaz-Balart,

and Lincoln, if you want to take a few minutes, we’ll turn to you,

sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman,

distinguished members. I am here in support of bill H.R. 190 introduced by Mr. Hastings of Florida, And would simply like the subcommittee to know of our support for this legislation in South Florida. It is our belief that it is an important piece of legislation in
6

that it seeks to clarify what we believe are important rights of the

Miccosukee Tribe and would ask the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman,

for its consideration of this legislation. I wanted to come by and

simply, on the record, put down my strong support for this legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your

presence. If you’d like to join us on the diaz, we know you’re very

busy, but whatever——

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the

offer. You know how the schedules are here. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. I understand.

Mr. Lehtinen, I hope I’m not crucifying your last name.

STATEMENT OF DEXTER LEHTINEN, ATTORNEY, VARGAS AND

REINER

Mr. LEHTINEN. Lehtinen. Lehtinen is good. Actually Lehtinen is

much closer to the true pronunciation, but we never use it.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I will turn the time to you, sir.

Mr. LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank

Congressman Diaz-Balart and Congressman Hastings, the prime

sponsor is in Afghanistan on some conference on security in Europe

and he did submit a statement for the record that I believe you

have. And also, Congressman Meek signed a statement as well and

is a co-sponsor of the bill. So we really have a bipartisan support,

Meek and Hastings on the Democratic side, and Diaz-Balart and

Miller is on the Republican side. So we thank them.

Let me just say briefly that when—1935 when the hundred thousand acre Monroe Indian Reservation was abolished, the

Miccosukees were living throughout South Florida. The reservation

was abolished in anticipation of creating Everglades National Park

and legally we think this amounts to a taking. The Roosevelt administration visited the Miccosukees along the trail, those who

were willing to speak with the government, and promised that they

would not be removed—Harold Ickes, then-Secretary of the Interior. The floor discussion in Congress reflected this and the floor

discussion’s very important because the Congressional Record has

Congressmen saying, ‘‘by passing this bill, we are placing them in

a home and in a position to live where they should live. We believe

they should remain there. They will be permitted to remain relatively undisturbed in their country and in their homes.’’ And

that’s from the Congressional Record explanation of the bill.

Throughout the fifties, the Tribe sought an organizational system

and a land-base within the park to protect their self-government

and were recognized under Reorganization Act in 1962, but had existed, of course, for centuries, but took that form in 1962 and the

United States allocated this 500-wide, 5-mile strip along the north

edge of the park where a road already existed, utilities already existed, and said in the permit that they could build in that area. The

BIA representative was Reginald Miller and I think it’s important

to see what he says.

He said that Interior and BIA, and these are quotes, ‘‘worked

with the idea of finding a land-base in the park in order to build

houses, have a school, a place for some medical attention, a community facility, business enterprises, and such things as a normal
7

community might want,’’ end quote. Miller went on to say, quote,

‘‘this was identified as the Tamiami Indian Reservation.’’ And I

might say that’s the way the park carried it on its own tourist

maps until about 1990. He says it was the Tribe’s traditional homeland and he says as the BIA representative that it was a permanent site.

Now the BIA built a permanent administration center and the

Tribe built, as Mr. Cohen has properly pointed out, what you see

in Tab 1, schools, a hundred houses, a police station, a medical center, senior center, and so forth. And all of the time the Tribe has

complied with environmental protection laws, like the Clean Water

Act, section 404, dredge and fill permits. They’ve applied in their

own name, and each time the court has found no environmental

damage to the park or any adjoining landowner.

But, nonetheless, tension in the 1990’s developed when it became

apparent that the Park Service position was that the presence of

an Indian Tribe, and I think, as you said in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that this is an issue perhaps nationwide, and

even with the way the park views its ownership and control of

parks even vis-a-vis tourists and other non-Indian users of the

parks, but they came to view that the Tribe’s mere presence was

inconsistent with the park.

So after 2 years of asking for approval under the permit to build

some houses, which under the permit is supposed to be a 60-day

period, the park has 60 days to review plans, which we think is

just a comment period, not an absolute veto, but they’ve turned it

into an absolute veto. So after waiting for 2 years, the Tribe went

directly to the Corps of Engineers for the 404 dredge and fill permit, when the park said the Tribe does not have a sufficient landed

interest to be an applicant for a dredge and fill. This was after decades of the Corps directly dealing with the Tribe.

After some litigation, which we won’t go into, the court took the

position that the Tribe did have a sufficient landed interest, found

no environmental damage to the park or anyone else, and issued

the dredge and fill permit for the 65 houses, but the park still said

no, using the permit as an absolute veto.

So what the Tribe wants, really, is a reaffirmation of what it believes Congress intended. The key elements would be, first, the

right to govern themselves as they see fit, that is, self-government

as though that area were an Indian reservation.

Secondly, the right to develop the area as the permit said,

houses, other things in the 333 acres, as long as the activities have

no harm to the outside environment, adjacent landowners, including no harm to the park. And that oversight of this would be by

normal enforcement mechanisms—the Clean Water Act, the Corps

of Engineers fining them for violations, the Attorney General can

sue them for violations, but not special enforcement by the park or

a veto by the park. And that these rights be in perpetuity. Actually, the rights in the 1917 Monroe Reservation were in perpetuity,

but in perpetuity in that law only meant 18 years, but we’d like

‘‘in perpetuity’’ again, anyway.

The Miccosukee Tribe will guarantee and will accept these mandates in writing in law to adhere to strict anti-pollution mandates,

to adhere to a provision of no harm to the Everglades restoration
8

or the park. And for that matter, height limitations, no gaming,

and no commercial aviation.

I want to repeat, even with limited time, that they will accept

in law that the Corps of Engineers shall not issue a permit unless

it finds no harm to restoration, hydro-period, water quality, and so

forth.

Mr. Cohen is right that the enhanced pace of construction comes

because of the Tribe’s ability to now fund this construction. But

none of this construction is outside of the permit area, none of this

construction has ever been found to be harmful to the park, and

while I appreciate their concerns about hydro-periods and restoration, we believe they simply have nothing to do with this. These

houses are along a road, the white man or non-Indian built, since

the 1962 permit, the Tribe’s always agreed that flow ways and everything else will be maintained and we have the good fortune of

using the park—or the U.S. government’s own water quality expert

to testify that there is no water quality damage.

So what I see, Mr. Chairman, is a government that allows this

construction in Everglades National Park. It’s in the Tab 2, this is

the park’s own brochure, or the commercial concessionaire’s brochure that points out within the park, down at the most sensitive

area in the interchange between the Florida Bay and the land,

which you took testimony on in 1993, this subcommittee did, in

Key Largo, that’s a park development. That’s within the park. And

we don’t say that the 100-room hotel for tourists, the numerous

cabins, the restaurant, the marina, and the park housing, and

you’ll in the tads and you’ll see that employee housing is right on

the sand, right overlooking the water, we don’t say the employee

housing violates the Park Act. But they actually have said that

they’re not sure they can allow the Tribe to build housing because

the Park Organic Act that creates the Park Service requires the

Park Service to preserve parks in their natural state, so that housing might be inconsistent. But I see that they say that at the same

time they build what you see behind tab 2 within their own park,

and perhaps appropriately build it.

So interestingly enough, we see that the Tribe is asking for nothing more than we think they already have. After all, the 1934 Congressional Record said they’ll be allowed to stay there undisturbed.

The BIA representative said it was in perpetuity to build houses

within the area. The Department of the Interior and the Federal

courts have already declared it legally to be Indian country, as a

legal proposition. If you commit a crime there, you get treated having committed a crime in Indian country.

The Florida Department of Transportation, I might point out,

and this isn’t definitive, but that sign that the Florida Department

puts on Tamiami Trail doesn’t say ‘‘Entering Miccosukee Permit

Area’’—they think it’s an Indian reservation—‘‘Entering

Miccosukee Indian Reservation.’’ Likewise, the park called it the

Tamiami Indian Reservation until 1987 when they changed it to

‘‘cultural area.’’ And also the maps you’ll see in tab 4, in conclusion,

these are maps—excuse me, tab 5, this is the Board of Regents official State of Florida map.

Governor Chiles has the introduction to this saying this is a

great document and the State of Florida map says Miccosukee In-
9

dian Reservation for the permit area, and the State of Florida discussion of Indians in its atlas says that this 333 area is an Indian

reservation. And the 1997 Gazetteer for Florida says this little

strip is an Indian reservation.

So what they seek, really, is just what most of us have been

seeking: freedom from governmental interference, from bureaucrats

telling them what’s good for them; freedom to develop their own

community as long as they don’t harm their adjoining neighbors,

as long as they have no environmental impact, as long as they

don’t hurt the park outside their boundaries; freedom to control

their own lives with no harm to anybody else. In short, just freedom under equal law.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I and, of course, the other members are happy to answer any questions.

[The statement of Mr. Lehtinen may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to dialog

with Mr. Cohen in terms of what exactly are the concerns of the

National Park Service. In my reading your statement, Mr. Cohen,

I get the impression that the Miccosukee Tribe’s inability to meet

the standards appointed to what a national park should be. Is

this—you mention something about a downstream effect of the development going on now with the Tribe. Can you elaborate a little

further on that?

Mr. COHEN. Sure. One could spend, actually, a fairly long time

responding to that question. I’ll try to be succinct. First of all, I’d

point out that this development in Flamingo that Mr. Lehtinen

noted was built in the late 1950’s, early 1960’s and preceded

NEPA. To the extent that there is construction going on now, it is

to repair damage down by Hurricane Andrew and it is being done

in a far more environmentally sensitive manner than what was

done when it was originally built. For example, the water tower

was replaced with a lower tower. It’s at tree level, rather than high

above it. So I’m not sure what relevance the Flamingo site has. It

certainly is not something the Park Service would build today.

In answer to your question, Congressman, the principal concern

here is not development per se in a Special Use Permit Area. The

Park Service recognizes the need and right of the Tribe to develop

their land. What we are concerned about is the following: that the

U.S. Government, in partnership with the State of Florida and others, is about to embark on a multi-billion dollar effort to renovate

the ecosystem in that area. We are concerned about the quality, the

quantity, the timing, and the distribution of water in that area.

That’s not to say that development on the Special Use Permit

Area is inconsistent with that, but without wanting to tread too

deeply into the litigation——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cohen, could I interrupt, basically? You

said that the Federal Government is now doing a comprehensive

work study relationship with the State of Florida, but I’ve never

heard you mention the Tribe included. And I wonder if—I get the

sense that the Tribe is the third priority, rather than on an equal

partner, or an equal level, or a sense of equity that when the Fed-
10

eral Government is in the process of expending a multi-billion dollar project in the Everglades, that the Tribes, not just the

Miccosukee—I suspect even the Seminole Tribe is probably involved in this. Am I correct? Or are they outside of the Everglades

park system? Is the Miccosukee Tribe the only Tribe involved in

this?

Mr. COHEN. No, the Seminoles are——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. So my question to you, Mr. Cohen, do

I get the impression that it’s only the Federal Government and the

state government that are primarily pursuing this ecosystem concern? Are the Tribes excluded in the process?

Mr. COHEN. No, I believe I said that it was the Federal Government, the State of Florida, and others, and you are correct, I

should specifically have mentioned the Tribe. And in fact, it is ironic that there is this ongoing tension between the Tribe and the government because if you were to list the ten players most concerned

about the ecosystem of this area, certainly the Tribe and the National Park Service would be in your top ten. So your point is well

taken.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.

Mr. COHEN. The point that I further wanted to make, however,

was that what the Park Service has asked for a comprehensive

land-use plan for the area from the Tribe. And the Tribe has failed

to produce it in a manner that responds to the planning needs of

the Department, and in fact——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Does the Tribe have resources to come out

with the expectations of the National Park Service.

Mr. COHEN. We offered to pay for that.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, did you?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Proceed.

Mr. COHEN. The point is that while there are currently pending

over a 100 fill permits, we believe the permits should not be approved on an ad hoc basis. This is an area that is sensitive and

strategically located. Given what our task is before us, the Park

Service believes it would be more effective if we had a comprehensive land-use plan.

We also made the point, incidentally, that if there was a comprehensive land-use plan, that every other application that was

consistent with the plan would then be approved in a very quick

manner. There wouldn’t be an extended discussion about how it fits

in. Because we would know how it fits in. Had the Tribe developed

the land use plan, I think we would not have had the problems.

Now, having said all of this, let me make one additional point.

Congressman Faleomavaega, you weren’t here during my testimony. I believe we’ve turned the corner with the Tribe. In the last

year, we’ve had several instances where we successfully have

worked with the Tribe to achieve mutual objectives and we’ve built

on that. We are now in the process of developing a proposal to submit to this Committee to redefine the relationship, to provide that

the Tribe can live in the Special Use Permit Area in perpetuity and

to define the standards under which their development would

occur.
11

I’m very optimistic that we can be successful in this effort. So,

while I think it’s not inappropriate to talk about the past, I hope

we don’t lose sight of what I think is very significant progress we’re

making for the future.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Did—and there’s just one or two—I have a

few more questions in my mind—is there currently a comprehensive plan being made between the Federal Government and the

State of Florida on a time or benchmark in terms of—because we’re

expecting, as you’ve said earlier, Mr. Cohen, this is a multi-billion

dollar investment on the part of the Federal Government to work

in conjunction closely with the State of Florida. Has this also already been made with the State of Florida? In other words, are we

looking at a 5-year plan, a 10-year master plan for this multi-billion dollar ecosystem planned out?

Mr. COHEN. Congressman, if I could defer the question——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] to the Park Superintendent.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, just give us an idea. Are we now having something in place to say that 10 years from now this is where

we’re going to be in the Everglades. And in the process, my question is, are the Indian Tribes included in that 10-year benchmark

or whatever the master plan that is being made?

Mr. RING. Sir, there’s an Ecosystem Task Force that has been

working for several years that initially was made up of Federal

members, but has been expanded to include the Tribes and the regional and state and local government representatives. It initially

has looked at all of the different activities that were being independently pursued by different agencies and has brought them together and coordinated them into a coherent program, and that

represents about $2 billion worth of capital investment that’s intended to be spent over the next 15–17 years.

In addition to that, there are several significant additional planning efforts that are going on under the aegis of this task force that

relate to a comprehensive review of the water management system,

which——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to make sure that the Indian

Tribes are included in the process, that’s my——

Mr. RING. Absolutely.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Alright. My next question—I have not had

a chance to study thoroughly the provisions of HR–190, but I wanted to know what the National Park Service position is on Mr.

Hastings’ proposed legislation.

Mr. COHEN. Well, the administration actually was not asked for

a position on the legislation, but let me say this. I don’t think it’s

necessary. I think that the work that we’re doing with the Tribe

will lead to success. Now there’s a third party here who will have

to be a part of this as well. And that would be the State of Florida.

There is a provision in the grant of the lands from the State of

Florida that encompass Everglades National Park that says that if

the land were ever to be used for a purpose other than a park purpose, that land would revert back to the State of Florida. So clearly, this land is not now and cannot be a reservation, because it

would automatically have reverted to the State of Florida.
12

We are hopeful, at the appropriate point, when we feel that we’re

making some good progress with the Tribe, we would want to bring

the state into those discussions, as well.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. Mr. Cypress, welcome. I just want

a quick question, Mr. Chairman, if it’s all right.

Your opinion on the comments that Mr. Cohen has just given—

do you feel satisfied with the efforts made on the part of the National Park Service? They are sincerely trying to find a mutual

agreement here, and I notice that you’re—very much wanted to

build houses, with the concerns of the ecosystem and the environmental, and I wanted to know if the effort being made by the Tribe

is in conformance with environmental laws as far as building or

constructing housing?

Mr. CYPRESS. Yes, there are about three areas that I think I can

speak on that would probably be on the opposite with the Park’s

explanation. Let me go back where it says that we did not submit

a comprehensive plan. We did so and it took them more than twoand-a-half years to answer. Then, finally, a hurricane came and

that became an explanation to everything that could not be answered.

Then, when we applied directly after letting them know that we

waited more than ample time, that we’re going to go directly to the

court—and we did. And at that time the court asked for what we

call an ‘‘accommodating period.’’ And that’s when the park says

that they can’t do that.

So, if we can get the permit from the Corps of Engineers, they

are the people who are charged with protecting the environment,

overseeing the environmental laws, and if they felt that our designs

and plans meet that criteria, we do meet those environmental laws.

Secondly, we’re in the stage now of developing where Congress

has said that Indian Tribes would be treated as states to set their

water standards. Right now we’re exceeding the State of Florida

and hopefully with our water standards that we will help clean the

park. Right now they’re accepting the pollution that’s coming

through and that’s acceptable, and yet they’re worried about us polluting any more. So it’s the other way around. That’s No. 2.

And second, while in demonstration and talking on—of the earlier statement of Cohen, not this go-around, but before—said that

he had worked with us by doing something with the Department

of Transportation. That is only after we find some material that

was telling the Department of Transportation not to do that. Because giving Indian people more land—what FDOT was going to do

through the State of Florida, saying that if he gives Indians more

land that makes him more—more permanent and it was not good

for the park. And this is where they wanted—where the Secretary

would take it. Then, at his discretion, he could call it what he

wanted.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many members in your Tribe?

Mr. CYPRESS. We have 403.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the total acres that the Tribe and the

Federal Government have agreed for you to settle in the Everglades?

Mr. CYPRESS. Three hundred thirty-three.
13

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Three hundred thirty-three acres? Or

333——

Mr. CYPRESS. Right, and at one time it was a 100,000 acres.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What happened to the 100,000 acres?

Mr. CYPRESS. They termed it national park and almost evicted

us. And we moved to the northern portion of the park and that’s

where we stayed and said we’re not going to move anymore, because that legislation putting from the state reservation, the coming apart, that Florida knew that they were devising a home there,

but still making it into a park where Indian people would continue

to live there.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cypress, within the Everglades, what is

the traditional boundaries or what was rightfully the Miccosukee

land base?

Mr. CYPRESS. Oh, gee whiz. That’s a good question because that’s

the dispute we have most of the time, because under European system, they put survey markers and highways and say we’re——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But obviously it’s more—it was more than

a 100,000 acres.

Mr. CYPRESS. At one time it was 2.5 million acres.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right, that’s what I wanted to know.

Mr. CYPRESS. This is by President Polk of Executive Order. And

I forget the year.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So from 2 million acres, 100,00 acres, now

you’re told to live only in 333 acres?

Mr. CYPRESS. Right. And then the National Park is over a million acres, so you can even be less than one——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So suggesting that maybe the park can be

even a little more generous by giving you 100,000 acres to live in.

Will that cause a population explosion, Mr. Cohen, in the Everglades?

Mr. COHEN. Let me just add that the Tribe also has a 75,000-

acre reservation north of the park.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many miles is that from where they’re

living?

Mr. COHEN. I’m sorry?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many miles is that from where they’re

living?

Mr. COHEN. I think it’s a 1-hour drive. But I think it’s fewer

miles by virtue of the road configuration. They also have rights in

Big Cypress, which is immediately adjacent, for carrying on traditional activities, including——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many acres in Big Cypress?

Mr. COHEN. Pardon?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many acres in Big Cypress?

Mr. RING. Sir, there are approximately 700,000–750,000 acres in

Big Cypress and there are provisions in the Big Cypress legislation

to provide for the Tribe’s use of traditional areas, as well as a right

of preference for new commercial services.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So what does that mean? Within the

700,000 acres are the Miccosukee given any specific—they can use

the 700,000 acres for traditional, cultural means?
14

Mr. RING. As I said, the provision is for the use of traditional

sites that were used within—by the Tribe and by both Seminole

and Miccosukee Indians.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cypress, can you comment on that?

Mr. CYPRESS. Yes, sure I can. If we can get this problem resolved, we will get into Big Cypress Preserve because it’s even

more clearer than the 1934 Act and this is the seventies we’re having a tough time with. It says we would have building homes for

subsistence, our traditional homeland and hunting. And we also

were entitled to first refusal. You know, there’s developments going

on, businesses going on; we have not received any notice telling us

that this is going to go on, ‘‘What’s your thoughts on how can you

submit a proposal to us?’’

So this is what our complaint to the Preserve people—that we

are having a problem with parks in general, not only the Everglades National Park, but the Big Cypress Preserve.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So even at Big Cypress, does the Miccosukee

have a say for the developments that’s going on in the National

Park Service, Mr. Cohen?

I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think I’ve taken too much of the time

already, but I do have several questions. I will pursue this definitely in the coming weeks. I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Chairman

and Mr. Cohen, you say that the 700,000 acres in Big Cypress—

and I see a map here before me—that the Miccosukee Tribe does

have certain rights to that 700,000 acres and I’m not clear on it.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, if we may, let us submit for the

record an explanation of what the rights are in Big Cypress——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] precise rights are of the Tribe——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would appreciate it.

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] with regard to that area, as well as

other areas around it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I would also like to submit for the

record, if you could submit for the record, what kind of development, concessionaires, business people, hotels, or whatever is being

built in the Big Cypress, if any, in the process. Is that alright? And

I would like to ask Mr. Cypress to submit your opinions on the Big

Cypress, as well.

Mr. CYPRESS. Yes.

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry to

take——

Mr. HANSEN. No, no. That’s fine.

Mr. Cohen, I’m missing something here. What’s the big deal?

We’re talking 500 feet? We won’t we just give it to them and get

it over with? Take it out of the park. You could do that with simple—I would think you could do that administratively. If not, we

could do it in our omnibus land swap bill we put through here

every year. Why is—and I’m not trying to be unkind to the Interior

Department—why is it such a big deal to the Interior Department?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, please recall that in the beginning I

pointed out that the 333 acres is a five-mile strip of land precisely

where the water flows. Two of the four structures through which

the water flows are immediately adjacent to this land. Three hun-
15

dred and thirty-three acres are not that much. It just happens to

be where these 333 acres are.

The other reason why we couldn’t do this administratively is we

don’t have the authority to, but second, if the land is used for a

purpose other than park purposes, it will automatically revert to

the State of Florida.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, what if the structures you’re referring to in

the legislation just protected that; would that bother you?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, my point again is that it doesn’t matter whether this parcel of land is inside or outside the park with

regard to its implications for the multi-billion dollar restoration.

The ramifications on the park are without regard to the geographic

boundaries. What is important is whether we can come to terms

with the Tribe on how development will proceed. We think we can.

Now, Chairman Cypress indicated that they had submitted a comprehensive land-use plan that we had requested. That was a site

plan that they submitted and it showed the 65 houses and the administrative buildings they wanted to build. Subsequent to the submission of this so-called comprehensive land-use plan, they submitted a request for fill for 100 more houses and other development

that were not on that plan. So it was not a comprehensive landuse plan.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Cypress, what’s your objection to that?

Mr. CYPRESS. We did submit it and it was good enough for them

back then and it’s their part—and then they said put what you

think is going to be; so we did add more. And then they said it was

too much. What it said was, ‘‘Tell us what you think you’re going

to need in future, but what is your immediate needs now?’’ So we

addressed immediate needs then, and said this is what we would

need in the future, and they said, well, you can’t do that.

Then, also, I’d like to point out that Solicitor Cohen saying that

they’re working with the Tribe, giving housing, and they offered to

settle, that we refused, is that what they said was, that if we allow

you to build—allow you, this is the thing about it, allow you to

build—we’ll give you 25 homes and no more development. That’s

like saying, well, we’re going to have zero population. Now where

can you impose that kind of sanction on a human being? Even if

we talk about communism, other places, even they don’t allow that.

They at least have one child.

Mr. HANSEN. I’m missing something. It seemed that somebody

said that the Tribe is willing to comply with all clean water standards, comply with the dredge and fill standards, the shooting

match. Is that right? Is that a correct statement?

Mr. CYPRESS. Yes, we’re willing to meet and have met the environmental laws. But we will not go and meet how our growth of

our Indian race. This is where it’s got to stop, where people talk

about man-made laws, playing God, that’s got to stop. Everybody

says this is 20th century, not the 1800’s, 1900’s, but it still goes

on today. We’re still living into what we call double standards and

double law. So forgive me for——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. CYPRESS. [continuing] but this is what we’re faced with. So

when you hear people make presentations that this is what they
16

did for us and we refused, they didn’t tell you what the conditions

were.

Mr. HANSEN. I’m a tad confused. It seems like this isn’t exactly

a big deal. Why are we making it one?

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Will the chairman yield, just to make a

brief statement, because I do have to leave? And I want to apologize for coming in late and having to leave——

Mr. HANSEN. The time is yours.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. But I just wanted to join my colleagues

in hoping for a resolution that’s going to be equitable and satisfactory to everyone and I’m encouraged to hear that one is coming.

But whenever this committee has an issue involving a Native

American Tribe, the issue of recognition of their sovereignty is also

a central part of the problem. And in negotiations and discussions,

I’m not always certain that the sovereignty of the Native Americans Tribe is recognize. And I know that’s a concern of my ranking

member, and I just wanted to voice that concern because I hear it

surfacing again. And if the resolution of this is to be an equitable

one, it has to be one that’s based on the recognition of the sovereignty of the Miccosukee Tribe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make that statement.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just am curious, because we’ve got approximately 400 people that have been given this little plot of land,

333 acres, to live on. Is the National Park Service considering the

fact that there’s going to be more than 400 people in the next 10

years as far as the population of the Miccosukee Tribe? What happens if they are going to be needing more houses to build so that

the, you know, the next generation of the Tribe is going to expand.

Obviously, there’s going to be more than 400 10 years from now.

You indicated earlier, Mr. Cohen, that there’s 75,000 acres a little bit north of—is it outside of the Everglades Park? Is that an official designated area as a reservation of the Miccosukee Tribe? I

just want to understand a little bit more.

Mr. RING. Sir, the 75,000-acre area is a reservation——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is it livable? Or is it a swamp?

Mr. RING. Almost all the land we’re talking about in the Permit

Area or on the reservation is part of the wetlands system of the Everglades. To build on it and develop on it requires fill and wetlands

and impact on that environment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I noticed there are some very beautiful

homes built on this 333-acre strip, but I’m curious, Mr. Cypress,

can you comment on this 75,000 acres?

Mr. CYPRESS. The 75,000 that we’re talking about is north of the

permanent area about 25 miles and you got to go to 27N to I–75,

then to our reservation 25 miles in, and this is—here’s another

problem. I’m glad you brought this up. Not only to get onto our

land, the State of Florida, in its wisdom, being that this road was

going to benefit the tribe—we have not benefited, but paid to visit

our land. A dollar each way, or 75 cents each way and they said

we’re benefiting from it. And I said does the toll both belonged to
17

the Tribe? They said, no, that belongs to the Department of Transportation.

So not only we have to pay to get on our land, but then we

have—the economic development when the State of Florida had it,

it would give out our leases when we sued the State of Florida as

trustee for us; it did everything for other people, except the Tribe,

but we took it, that land, and put it into Federal as our trustee,

and we’re still getting the same treatment. I guess we’re bad luck

with people with—who become our trustees. But we sued to get

that benefit, but also when the Tribe took its land of 75,000 acres,

we said that we’re going to go—continue with oil exploration and

development. Next thing you know, the Cabinet says you can’t do

that. You’re in violation of wetlands.

Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the chairman, I’m sorry.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me thank the witnesses for being here and the

very interesting and provocative testimony you’ve all given us. I

have a vote and my friend from American Samoa doesn’t have a

vote, so I’m going to turn the gavel over to him.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So much for democracy, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. He’ll run the show, and let me thank each

and every one of you. I would like to get this thing resolved for

folks, if we could. If there’s a way to do it in an amicable manner,

I’m all for it. I turn it over to my friend here and I’ll go vote. And

I won’t be back, so——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At least for the record, I would like to request, Mr. Cohen, on behalf of the National Park Service, and Mr. Cypress, please, you’re

welcome to submit for the record any other needed information to

be made part of the record as far as your position that has been

taken as far as the areas that we’ve discussed this morning.

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. COHEN. Congressman, let me just make one additional

point——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] about the expansion, if I may. One of

the many reasons why we felt that a comprehensive land-use plan

was important is that it would truly forecast future growth. I

would contemplate in advance, rather than on an ad hoc, application-by-application basis, how growth would be managed in the

area so that we could plan for it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, under the provisions of the Federal Constitution, the Congress has been given plenary authority to

deal directly with the Indian Tribes. And then, in the process, the

Congress has delegated this basic authority to act as trustee on behalf of the Indian Tribes or as the lead agency, or their lead advocate in the person of the Secretary of the Interior. And I’m sorry

that we don’t have anybody from the Bureau of Indian Affairs here

as the primary spokesman on behalf of the Indian tribes.

But I want to go back where there’s some sense of history on

this. Mr. Cohen, the fact that the Miccosukee tribe at one time

held, as far as they know, to be their sovereign rights on the lands

here that is now known as the Everglades, some two million acres

of land. And I am sorry that whoever made the confederations and
18

now I understand that the whole Everglades is now under the authority of the State of Florida. Is this—I thought that this was

under the Federal Government.

Mr. RING. Congressman, the whole remaining Everglades is

much larger than the areas that are under Federal jurisdiction. So

there are some that are under Federal jurisdiction like Everglades

National Park, but there are significantly large areas, for instance,

the water conservation areas north of the park, that are under

state administration and ownership.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The point I’m making is there in the process—am I to understand that—if the Federal Government decides

not to hold any more jurisdictional authority over these lands that

are now called the Everglades, it reverts automatically to the State

of Florida?

Mr. COHEN. The large portions of the park were donated to the

Federal Government when the park was created. That donation

had a reverter clause in it that said that in the event that the land

is not used for park purposes in the future, it would revert to the

State of Florida. Now, that’s not to say that in our discussion about

a settlement for a new piece of legislation to govern the relationship—it would be our hope that the State of Florida would participate in those discussions, and that they would agree to the new

legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cypress, have you ever considered looking at why your two million acres was—all of a sudden disappeared?

Mr. CYPRESS. This is—I mentioned this earlier, that it’s always

somebody making decisions for Indian people without talking with

them, letting them know, or be part of it. So the State of Florida

and the park worked on this, as you hear ‘‘donation.’’ We were

right in the center of what is known as the national park today.

But we were evicted from the homelands with the tribe’s not having a consent to—not having any confrontation. So when it’s over

and done with, the sheriff evicted some of our Indian people and

that’s why they went to north on the Tamiami trial. Well, it is not

as pristine as the park makes it where it’s the water. It isn’t. That

was the main stream of a road from Tampa to Miami. That’s why

it has that name, Tamiami. So——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And at the time, neither the Federal Government, nor any of your own people could afford an attorney to

prevent any evictions or any [unintelligible] whatsoever.

Mr. CYPRESS. We had no money, no voice. That is correct. And

on top of that, the State of Florida went and got what you call Public Law 280 without Tribe’s consent either. But a lot of these things

were done—where the Tribe just wants to be left alone in its own

traditional lifestyle, law, even that, sometime we have a conflict, of

traditional law. But here, a lot of these things were done because

the Tribe—Indian people really don’t want, you know, outside contact, but just be left alone. With it, everybody was what we call

land-swapping, land-dealing, and then before you know it, we had

the sheriff tell us, ‘‘This is not your land. You have to move.’’

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If I could hear correctly from Mr. Cohen’s

earlier testimony, it’s not that you’re not unwilling to allow the

Miccosukee Tribe from development. Am I correct on this?
19

Mr. COHEN. Absolutely correct.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You just want them to conform to the comprehensive plan of the ecosystem that is being utilized both by the

State of Florida and the Federal Government?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, but they are—as a participant in that restoration, I don’t have any doubt that they will do that. And obviously

the development also has to be consistent with the purposes of the

park, as Congress articulate them in the statute that created the

park.

I also believe that’s quite doable. So as I say, I’m trying to focus

on the future in this testimony. I think we’re very close. I think

that the history of the last 4 or 5 years has been quite unfortunate,

but I don’t think it has to or should dictate what happens in the

future.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, but by developing the 333 acres, Mr.

Cohen, where are these people going to go after this? These acres

are going to be full of houses. I mean, where—does the park not

mind at all if they continue to develop beyond the 333 acres?

Mr. COHEN. The purpose of the land use plan was to address

that issue. I don’t know what the carrying capacity, if you will, of

333 acres is. There are a fair number of open spaces there. But I’m

also not an urban planner or a community planner, and absent the

plan, I think it’s very difficult to address that issue. The Superintendent, I think, wants to say something.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.

Mr. RING. Congressman, the very—one of the very fundamental

issues with the problems besetting the Everglades right now is that

since the turn of the century about 50 of the footprint of the Everglades has been lost to development. From all sources within South

Florida. As the population has grown from less than 100,000 to six,

over six million. That is projected to triple over the next 50 years.

And with 50 loss in the spacial scale of the Everglades, we’ve lost

90–95 of the wading bird populations and there are 56 endangered

species down there.

So yes, the issue of where and how future development is going

to occur is a fundamentally important issue to whether or not the

Everglades survives. I mean, it is a basic, underlying concern of the

whole ecosystem restoration effort and of accomplishing the purposes of the preservation of the park.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Ring, you’re the Superintendent of the

Everglades Park?

Mr. RING. Yes, sir, I am.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many business concessions do we have

now in the Everglades Park. As the Superintendent, how many

business concessions are there now in place?

Mr. RING. As concessions we have a one-act Flamingo which is

an over—which provides the marina operations store there, a restaurant and——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How much does the State of Florida gross

each year out of the park system? People visiting there, paying fees

and whatever that is offered there? Is there some entry fees where

they visit the park?

Mr. RING. The State of Florida doesn’t gross anything, the National Park Service——
20

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How much do we gross a year on the usage

of the park?

Mr. RING. There are entrance fees, there are certainly revenues

collected from concessions. The impact on the regional economy of

the approximately one million visitors that visit the Everglades

every year has been estimated to be about $120 million dollars a

year.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So the National Park Service gets about

$120 million dollars for visitors using the park, am I correct?

Mr. RING. That’s the impact of all of that activity on the regional

economy. There are multiplier effects from one dollar being introduced into the economy being spent——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the fact that you have one million visitors that go to the park every year.

Mr. RING. There are about one million visitors and the impact on

the regional economy has been estimated to be about $120 million

a year.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. One million visitors to the park and

we’re talking about 400 Indians that are trying to live in 333 acres.

Mr. Lehtinen, have you had a chance to look into the historical aspects of the Miccosukee Tribe and why hasn’t there been a proper

litigation in terms of claiming what is rightfully theirs as far as

their land ownership?

Mr. LEHTINEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the shortest answer I can

give is that when the Monroe Reservation was abolished in 1935,

and the state tried to swap it for land in the north where no

Miccosukees lived and where none live today and when the park’s

own retained expert cultural anthropologist was asked what would

happen if you made the Miccosukees in the future live there, he

said it would be cultural genocide and one of the worst chapters in

American policy.

The Tribe has looked at that, but the—and there were some

claims filed and agreements reached that allowed the tribe to use

water conservation area 3-A for traditional use and access, but not

build permanent homes with electricity and utilities. The reservation, the no good reservation, the one that would have amounted

to a 19th century Indian removal policy if you’d have forced them

up to the 75,000 acres, that’s really not for practical purposes available.

Big Cypress is traditional use and access. So when they agreed

in 1982 to traditional use and access and in the Big Cypress Law

to the provisions they did, they thought they had the right of traditional use and access throughout Everglades Park and the right to

build. The real key over here, as Mr. Cohen and Mr. Cypress indicated, the real key now is where you can build your homes, your

electricity, your satellite TV dishes, and so forth. And they thought

they had that guaranteed, with the testimony we’ve given earlier,

in the permit area. And that the permit area could be expanded.

Because whether it’s 500 feet deep or 1,000 deep, or 1,500 deep, as

Mr. Cohen said, it’s really the length along the right away that

matters, water flow. And compared to a million and a half land

acres and more than two million if you count the water acreage of

Everglades National Park, it’s not significant.
21

So the reason the previous litigation has either not been successful or settled for the traditional use and access was that mostly the

tribe wants traditional use and access to its historic lands. And

they want them preserved. Now, we are in litigation over the fact

that after they were given traditional use and access to Water Conservation Area 3–8, about 80,000–90,000 acres in its natural state,

the state—I was the U.S. attorney who sued the state for failing

to enforce its law against, not these 400 Indians, but against

400,000 industries and businesses that are killing the Everglades

these people live in. And we have sued over, not the right to build

a home in 3-A, but the fact that neither the Federal nor the state

government will enforce the laws to keep 3-A from deteriorating

and being destroyed in its natural state. So if the tribe were guaranteed its right to develop in the limited areas it needs to develop,

that would amount to the land-use plan, that in this 300 or 600

or 1,000 maybe it should be, that’s where you can build, put pavement, put in utilities and then their historic right to hundreds of

thousands of other acres might well be preserved if—not the subject here, but I testified before this committee in 1993 in Key Largo

to the fact that what the government needs to do then is protect

that 100, 200, 300,000 acres from degradation, from pollution. But

that’s another matter and the Tribe is suing these governments to

make sure that they don’t let these homelands be polluted.

But the battle over development really is, to clarify this, is the

right to build and there’s been no claim ever, the 1962 permit says

that the flow ways will be maintained. The water flows through,

there’s no problem there. I serve on the comprehensive—on Secretary Babbitt’s, the congressionally created South Florida Ecosystem Task Force. I serve on the Governor’s Commission for a

Sustainable South Florida by appointment of Governor Chiles and

there’s no indication that anything the Miccosukees have done affect the, you know, the restoration efforts.

If I might add, on a couple of other questions that you raised,

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, the Miccosukees are the

only people, Indian or non-Indian, who live in the Everglades. The

Seminoles have an interest, as do I, a non-Indian who lives in Kendall, born and raised in South Dade, but I don’t live in the Everglades, only the Miccosukees, not the Seminoles, not the water

management district, nobody else, not me, lives in the Everglades.

So oddly enough, they get the pollution that the Federal and state

governments refuse to stop in the 650,000 businesses and homes

that really pollute the Everglades and they get told they can’t build

their 65 houses.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cohen, could you comment to that?

Mr. COHEN. I also hesitate to try to comment on anything Dexter

says because he crams in so much in such a short period of time.

Which ‘‘it’’ do you want me to comment on?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just the last sentences that Mr. Lehtinen

had indicated that 650,000 pollutants——

Mr. COHEN. Well, that’s what we’re spending multi-billions of

dollars on, is to try to stop that pollution. We’re not encouraging

that pollution. I don’t know how else to respond to that.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The Miccosukee are the ones getting it. Am

I correct on that?
22

Mr. COHEN. So is the National Park.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.

Mr. COHEN. And the refuges.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.

Mr. COHEN. That’s why we have fifty some odd endangered species. That’s why the ecological carrying-power of this area has been

reduced 90 percent.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You don’t think the Miccosukees are as sensitive to the environment because they live there?

Mr. COHEN. I think the Miccosukees are every bit as sensitive,

if not more so. That’s not—Mr. Chairman, let me respond to this

issue, I mean, I’ve been sitting here playing with whether I can respond to this because of the litigation——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, no. You definitely——

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] because of the litigation. And there was

a reason why the Park Service did not approve all 60 houses. There

was a legitimate disagreement as to whether construction of those

houses would in fact degrade the Everglades——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cohen, was the disagreement based on

interpretation of statutory law or was it regulation or what? How

did the disagreement come about? Is it by regulation or by law that

we have this serious problem?

Mr. COHEN. Congressman, those are the matters before the

court.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, no, no. I just want to know it is a disagreement on the interpretation of the law? Or is a disagreement

on the interpretation of the regulations?

Mr. COHEN. The regulations are promulgated pursuant to statute, so if you violate regulations, you also violate the statute.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.

Mr. LEHTINEN. Might I comment, Mr. Chairman? I appreciate

the informality.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, go ahead.

Mr. LEHTINEN. There was a comment about comprehensive landuse plans and because those are code words and some legitimacy

to them, I wanted to point this out. I’ve been in that business for

many years and comprehensive land-use plans traditionally will

say ‘‘this thousand acres is residential, this 2,000 is commercial,

this 5,000 is to be preserved.’’ To say that an area, as was done

in 1962, that 333 or perhaps it should be 666 or 1,000, but that

a certain small area is designated for development and building is

itself a comprehensive plan. The park has a million and a half

acres, it says Flamingo can be this, they plan for this, they have—

a lot of it is wilderness area, isn’t gentlemen? Designated wilderness, true Federal wilderness area. And that this area, 300 to 1,000

acres will be development, that is a comprehensive plan. When you

ask someone to show where in your 333 you’re going to build and

how you’re going to build, that’s a site plan. That is micro-management land use. That’s a super-zoning office or even more than zoning. Actually, comprehensive plans will be a 2,000 acre area. And

then zoning will zone areas, you know, like I live in an area that’s

more than 500,000 acres, it’s zoned single family residential.

So comp planning would be a 10,000-acre, a 1,000-acre parcel. Or

a development line, beyond which you don’t develop in Dade Coun-
23

ty. Zoning would be 300 acres is zoned for residential and commercial. And—so that’s—even zoning is below, lower than comp planning. And to go into the detail about what they’re going to do with

their land is truly a sight plan, micro-management, that’s interference with it.

The standard, again, and I think you asked, Mr. Chairman, to

reiterate—the tribe accepts that nothing it does can damage or pollute the outside. Since 1962 they’ve been committed not to blocking

the flow ways and so forth. It’s the non-Indians that built that

road. They wanted the Indians out of park and they told the Indians ‘‘you’ve got to build along the road, because we’ve already built

a road there and we already block the flow.’’ Now they turn around

and say, ‘‘even though there are flow ways and the Indians have

done nothing to block them’’—in fact, the Indians have committed

even to if you made a mistake, the permit says this and we hate

to point it out, but if says ‘‘if the non-Indian made a mistake and

something was built where later it blocked the flow way, they actually can remove it. So these, we think, are strawmen issues, and

while comprehensive planning sounds good, it’s not applicable to

300 acres. And if I might just say realistically, the other problem

with comp planning, those of us in the business know that they

don’t go to a 300 acre—that small a parcel. But even the 10,000-

acre parcels they designate for this or that, you know how good

they are? They’re as good, until you get twelve votes on the Metro

Commission or until you get seven votes on the Metro Commission.

I haven’t since a comp plan that isn’t busted the day the special

interests get—you make a comp plan today and it’s changed tomorrow. It’s only as good as the political power that is involved. So to

transfer this idea that somehow a comp plan not applicable to 300

acres, that small a parcel, that’s really micro-management, would

be the appropriate methodology because it has a certain ring to

other land-use planning, is inappropriate because comp planning

has not worked for the non-Indians in really protecting the environment and comp planning doesn’t apply even to acres—to parcels

as small as 300.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Lehtinen. Let me just ask

Mr. Cohen one more time, I just wanted to clarify in my own mind.

It is by Federal statute that we have given 333 acres to the

Miccosukee Tribe to utilize?

Mr. COHEN. No, sir. The legislation provides that Tribe may continue to reside in the park, so long as——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Federal legislation?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just like we’ve done to the Seminoles?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. So long as it is not inconsistent with park

purposes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So long as the sun rises and every blade of

grass, and all of that?

Mr. COHEN. The mechanism for doing that was a Special Use

Permit which identified these 333 acres that was entered into in

1962.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So the—I’m still not clear on this. The 333

acres, who designated the 333 acres? Or which agency? The Federal Government did? The Congress did?
24

Mr. COHEN. The National Park Service.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The National Park Service?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And this is by authority from the Congress

to do so?

Mr. RING. No, sir. There’s no specific authority that describes the

permit or the 333 acres. There is a provision in the act establishing

the park that defines its purposes—the purposes of the park, and

then there is a clause that reads ‘‘nothing in this act shall be construed to lessen any existing rights of the Seminole Indians which

are not in conflict with the purposes for which Everglades National

Park is created.’’

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, I saw that in the law. And this same

provision also applies to the Miccosukee Tribe?

Mr. RING. At the time the—I believe it was, the term, ‘‘the Seminole’’ was used to refer to both Seminole and Miccosukee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is that your understanding, Mr. Cypress?

Mr. RING. They have been recognized as separate tribal entities

since that time.

Mr. CYPRESS. What it is is that Miccosukee composes, makes up

the Seminole, is about 75 percent or 50 percent. So what you’re

talking about—today there are two tribes. And before that they

just labeled everyone Seminole. And Miccosukee tribe is a little bit

more clearer bloodline and Seminole tribe today has two mixture

blood mixed together. One-Miccosukee blood, and another one

called Creek Indian from the northern Florida or Alabama. So

when you get—it’s like, the Creeks, pure blood of Miccosukee—in

between is the mixture.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. I’ll take that. I’ll accept that.

Mr. CYPRESS. OK, this is why that most people recognize Seminoles for a long time until they find out. Now most anthropologists

and everybody else now say that, gee, the real Indian people had

been Miccosukee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You don’t have to talk to me about anthropologists. The next anthropologists I catch coming to my island, I’m

going to shoot them.

Mr. CYPRESS. Yes, that makes two of us. But even they

admit——

Mr. LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, might I add, Dexter Lehtinen for

the record, the Tab 10 might be useful to you, Mr. delegate, because that letter, 1962 BIA transmittal letter, explains why they’re

doing a permit and it says that this is consistent with the intent

of Congress in the 1934 act, but that was——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What I’m trying to get at, Mr. Cohen and

Mr. Lehtinen, is that if there has been any real expressed statutory

conveyance by the Congress, by boundaries, by acreage, whatever

it is, given to the Miccosukee Tribe as their reservation. That’s

what I’m trying to get at. Now, apparently, from what you’re telling me is that there has not been done.

Mr. COHEN. No. The answer is no.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It’s by The National Park Service and the

BIA regulation, based on this statute that was enacted, I believe,

in 1934 originally. So there really has been no real designation of

any certain number of acres per se to the Miccosukee Tribe like
25

we’ve done in the past for other Indian tribes in the country. Am

I correct?

Mr. COHEN. Not by the Congress.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That’s right.

Mr. COHEN. The Special Use Permit——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That’s right.

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] does define the——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We’ve just declared the whole Everglades as

The National Park Service, right? With these provisions that for

the purposes of use of the Miccosukee or the Seminoles, that they

do—they can live there under a special use permit issued by the

National Park Service or in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian

Affairs.

Mr. RING. Delegate, there is one reference that is in the Settlement Act that was approved by Congress in the early 1980’s for the

Miccosukees that refers to both the 75,000-acre reservation, but it

also refers to the permit.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You’re saying that there was a Settlement

Act——

Mr. RING. Yes, there was.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing] that relinquished the right of

the Miccosukee to the parks by giving them 75,000 acres and then

they have to pay a toll fee to go to their——

Mr. RING. There was a Settlement Act that was approved in the

early 1980’s that made reference—my understanding was——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And did the Miccosukee Tribe accept that as

settlement, Mr. Cypress?

Mr. CYPRESS. The reason that went with it is because Congress

and the park had agreed that Indian people were going to have

land in the park already. And also, this agreement was for the

Area 3, north of the national park. Because what was outstanding

was, as I said earlier, is that the Executive Order claiming, I think

it’s about between 4 million and 2.5 million covering five counties

to be Indian land, of Executive Order, and this is what the reduction was made. And it also did not distinguish aboriginal rights to

those areas. Not only Collier, Dade, Monroe, even in the national

park.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cypress, am I correct to say that the 75

acres that have been allotted, and I assume that was part of the

Settlement Act, was never part of your traditional area of living?

Mr. CYPRESS. That is correct. Except, I mean, at one point, the

75,000 acres that is there is on the borders, but then at the same

area that, as I mentioned earlier, Creek, the mixture, live there

and the tribes were isolated from one another and I knew some

were down the road that you would be passing——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, but my question, Mr. Cypress, the

75,000 acres, has that all been surveyed and everything?

Mr. CYPRESS. It’s been surveyed by the United States.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And conveyance forevermore it is the property of the Miccosukee Tribe forevermore?

Mr. CYPRESS. That is correct, but it’s not used by the Tribe.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That’s what I mean. There’s not one

Miccosukee living there because it’s a swamp.

Mr. CYPRESS. Right.
26

Mr. COHEN. Actually, if I can be a lawyer for one moment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please.

Mr. COHEN. Title resides in the United States as a trustee of Indian reservation land. I just want to correct the record.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, that’s what I was thinking too,

Mr. Cohen. I was wondering when you were saying that if the title

was to pass, it goes, in your—automatically to the State of Florida,

that’s what I was a little confused about.

Mr. LEHTINEN. And Mr. Chairman, on Tab 15 of the book, then

entry for 1982 might clarify at some time what happened in 1982

with the Federalization of that reservation to the north where

no——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Gentlemen, I apologize for being somewhat

too specific perhaps. It’s just trying to understand a little more the

problem, but I—if I’m to understand Mr. Cohen’s statement, he

feels very optimistic that you will find a mutual sense of agreement

of what can be done. Mr. concern, Mr. Cohen, is that it seems to

me that 10 years from now, 333 acres is not going to be enough

for the Miccosukee people to live on. And I think—it seems to me

that that really is the bottom line. Where do you go from there if

they’re going to be—is there going to be a demand for more houses

to be built beyond the 333 acres? And I suppose we can wait 10

years from now. I’ll be dead by then, but——

Mr. COHEN. Maybe you’ll have a vote in Congress by then, too.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, right. Like I’m really dreaming on that,

Mr. Cohen. I, as the Chairman said, can we give ourselves a little—some slack here and allow, you, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Ring, a

chance to meet again with Mr. Cypress and see if we can resolve

this amicably? Hopefully not without litigation, hopefully we can do

it here. The other option, I was thinking, Mr. Cohen, that we will

mandate by law, expressing exactly the boundaries and the number

of acres that perhaps—that is needful for the Miccosukee people to

declare as their rightful place to live.

Mr. COHEN. That certainly is something Congress could do. I

would just simply ask that you keep in mind the reverter clause

that the State of Florida has. With regard to the question of whether there’s going to be an amicable settlement, I’ve been waiting for

Mr. Lehtinen or Chairman Cypress to indicate that they, too, are

optimistic. I was hoping I was going to hear that. We’ve certainly

had some discussions that have led me to that conclusion and I

know we’ve talked about the past a great deal. I was hoping to

hear something positive from them to give some credence to my optimism.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cypress?

Mr. CYPRESS. OK. You see, I can’t compare with being a politician to an attorney. I can’t compete with that, but I will say this:

The items in discussion, one through certain areas, but then you

get to number—you rate it down, and then one point takes all that

they gave back. That’s the problem. If there was room for flexibility, fine, but, you know, I’ve been bending back so bad that I

began to see what my heels of the shoe look like now. That is the

problem, and it’s time, I think, the park needs to understand that

there are people living there; that they are going to grow; there are

going to be some deaths; there are going to be some people being

born.
27

That’s the life cycle that needs to continue, but when people tell

me that you’ve got to find a way to control it, or we’re going to control your growth in your community, that I have a problem with.

Then, on top of that, if you heard Mr. Cohen say that they are

going to spend billions of dollars, I’m happy, but the problem is

this: What they’re holding me is that I’m being punished for what

others did, and I had no control of what corporate sector does, but

because of what happened, they say, well, we don’t want that, so

we don’t want you to do that. You know, if they had done what

they should have been doing, you know what, we would have a better place to live in south Florida. This is what gets my goat—as

I talked about earlier, having two standards of the law.

Thank you.

Mr. LEHTINEN. I think Mr. Cohen invited us to comment, and it

is true that Mr. Cohen and I have—and with Mr. Cypress’ involvement, of course—reached some agreements on issues that a year or

two ago, in litigation and other things, were outstanding and were

a problem—actual points of the Interior, some of them, not Mr.

Cohen, but others saying the tribe can be removed upon expiration;

the rights are not in perpetuity. There has been substantial

progress, and Mr. Cohen has played a positive role in getting the

progress on those matters.

It does mean—and Ed knows this—that I have compared it

sometimes to, if you’re going to be shot five times and you make

progress to where you’re shot only once, if being shot once kills you,

then the benefit of the four other shots not being there doesn’t

help. But if you’re going to go from death to life, then reducing it,

as we have, on maybe four of five, you know, 80 percent of the

problems, is definitely progress. We’ve just got to get over some of

the remaining central issues, and in that sense we certainly are optimistic.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I just want to say that the chairman

and I are very concerned about this, and if it means that maybe

some way or somehow that we might resolve this issue by way of

legislation, we’re hopeful that you gentleman can resolve this even

outside of litigation, but if not, we will address this issue again before another committee hearing, and maybe even have to introduce

appropriate legislation to cure it.

But with that in mind, I want to thank you, gentlemen, for being

here this morning. I do look forward to visiting the Miccosukee

tribal reservation in the near future, if I can. I have a bunch of

cousins that live in Orlando, and Disney World maybe might not

be too far from where you are.

So, gentlemen, thank you for coming this morning.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the Subcommittee adjourned subject to

the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
28

STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. COHEN, DEPUTY SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity

to discuss the Department of the Interior’s discussions with the Miccosukee Tribe

regarding their special use permit. The Department’s focus in these negotiations is

to protect the natural resources of the Everglades National Park and to provide

more autonomy to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida in the use and occupancy of the special use permit lands within the Park.

In 1934, Congress authorized Everglades National Park to preserve intact a

unique ecosystem found nowhere else in the world. The Park preserves a vast wetland of global significance and is the remaining finest example of South Florida’s

subtropical ecology. It includes sawgrass prairies, cypress swamps, tropical hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests and other fragile environments such as Florida

Bay.

In recent years, the Park has been at the center of a complex and massive Federal

and state effort to restore and preserve the South Florida ecosystem. This effort is

spearheaded by a Federal, state, tribal and local task force. Among the objectives

of that task force are: (1) managing hydrological conditions in undeveloped and restorable lands to maximize the historic water regimes and natural processes; (2) ensuring that future development is compatible with the goals of ecosystem restoration

and long-term preservation; and (3) ensuring that development does not preclude

restoration efforts. The Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes of Florida have actively

supported these goals and participated in the current restoration effort.

The Miccosukee Tribe occupies an area within the Park pursuant to the terms of

a 50-year special use permit issued to the Tribe in 1964 by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Park’s authority under the various laws governing the

administration of the Park. The special use permit was issued ‘‘for the purpose of

(providing) administrative and educational facilities and to provide places for the

Miccosukee Indians to live, make and sell handicraft.’’ It allows the Tribe to occupy

approximately 333 acres in a linear strip five miles long and 500 feet wide within

the northern boundary of the Park. The special use permit expressly requires National Park Service approval for the Miccosukees to construct buildings and structures or to otherwise dredge or fill on the area in a manner that will not affect the

water quality or interfere with the free flow of water through or over Parklands.

In interpreting this general guidance, the Park must balance development in the

Miccosukee permit area with the protection and perpetuation of Park resources.

Today, about 134 homes and an 18-acre tribal government complex sit in Everglades National Park. That complex includes a tribal headquarters, schools, health

clinic, police station, court house, and several other structures. This modern-day

community is located immediately downstream of structures that deliver the Park’s

water from the north. Enough clean water delivered at the right time and right

place will save the Everglades. Realization of this objective has become a multi-billion dollar effort. It is for this reason that the Park has sought to carefully evaluate

the scope, scale and location of the Miccosukee presence. The most recent issue—

the Tribe’s desire to construct 65 new homes after completing 51 new homes in

1993—led to a significant deterioration in relations between the National Park Service and the Tribe. The Tribe sued the Park in 1994 arguing that the Park should

immediately permit the construction of these homes. That suit is still unresolved.

The Park authorized 95 new home sites, although not in the configuration that the

Tribe had requested. The Park also agreed that construction could begin on 30

houses last fall. The Tribe maintains that building in the alternative configuration

would require construction of new and expensive infrastructure. Nevertheless, construction on the initial 30 homes for which there is agreement is underway.

The special use permit calls for a large amount of Park oversight. The Tribe views

this as an intrusion on their sovereign authorities, creating an inherent tension between the Park and the Tribe. For the Park’s part, it simply seeks to carry out obligations under the permit in order to protect Park resources.

The National Park Service proposes the replacement of the special use permit

with a new legal framework which respects Tribal sovereignty, acknowledges the

Tribe’s desire to live in the Park in perpetuity, and which places specific obligations

on the Tribe to assure that their presence is not inconsistent with our efforts to protect and restore the Everglades and Everglades National Park. We have developed

the outline of a legislative proposal incorporating that framework and have transmitted it to the Tribe for review and input.

Implementing a solution involves solving a host of natural, cultural and visitor

use issues. Among them, as examples, are that the Tribe would need to prevent and

abate any degradation of the quality of surface water which enters the contiguous
29

Tribal land and any surface or ground water that is released directly or indirectly

into the Park from these lands. Also, flow ways would need to be maintained for

the unimpeded flow of water with no construction or fill in those areas. Attention

also needs to be paid to the preservation of native plant communities and the prevention of the introduction or maintenance of exotic plants. Developmental actions

should not interfere with the preservation of stable wildlife populations and native

species diversity while maintaining adequate wildlife migration routes.

We approach these discussions with the Tribe with high hopes and the view that

the Department and the Tribe are partners in restoring the ecological health of the

Everglades. The Tribe and the Park will always be neighbor. Both recognize that

development in this particularly sensitive area may generate impacts to the Park.

Downstream effects of development occur regardless of land ownership. Only by

working together with common goals can we jointly protect the fragile ecosystem of

the Everglades.

The Tribe has had the Department’s draft of a legislative proposal for several

weeks and their initial informal reactions have been promising. We are committed

to reaching a solution and stand ready for further discussions.

This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF BILLY CYPRESS, CHAIRMAN, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF

FLORIDA

My name is Billy Cypress. I’ve been the elected Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe

of Indians of Florida since 1986 and an elected Councilman since 1973.

The Miccosukee Tribe, with a 50 percent blood membership requirement (highest

in Indian Country), is determined to preserve its culture, its identity, its heritage,

and its way of life. The keys to achieving these goals are self-determination and

strong tribal self-government within its own jurisdiction, the right to govern its people under traditional laws and traditional culture. These are oft-stated goals of Congressional Indian policy as well.

For centuries, the European arrivals and then the U.S. Government were opponents in that struggle. Even now, in the era of supposedly more enlightened Indian

policies and while some Federal agencies work well with us to achieve these goals

(such as the Corps of Engineers), the National Park Service works as an agent of

our destruction.

Our Tribe’s experiences form a pattern. First, the government pushes us to land

nobody wants. Later, the government decides that the land has some value after all,

so they push us to other land nobody wants. Then, the cycle repeats itself.

After several of these cycles in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century saw

the Monroe Reservation of 100,000 acres set aside in the southern Everglades ‘‘in

perpetuity’’ (the state law said). Then, within 20 years the Monroe Reservation was

taken away to make Everglades National Park. We were promised then that we

could stay in the Park. Congress was told then by the Park Enabling Act’s sponsors

that the Indians would remain in the Park. And the so-called ‘‘permits’’ we’ve had

since 1962 say we can build permanent structures in an area on the north edge of

the Park.

But in the 1990’s, the Park Service said that when the permit ‘‘expires,’’ they can

make us move again. Our tribal members have been told by Park rangers ‘‘don’t

plant trees that take a long time to grow, because you’re not going to stay here.’’

Our tribal officials have been told by high level Interior officials, in conferences with

our lawyers, that ‘‘we can move you out when the permit expires.’’

Now, as you’ve probably guessed, we don’t accept that view. We’re not going to

move and I don’t think the government will really make us move. After several

rounds of recent lawsuits the Interior Department apparently now says we won’t

have to move. But what will be said tomorrow?

We have the good fortune to be able to use the U.S. government’s own expert witnesses to support us. This includes their water quality experts (retained on Everglades water issues), their cultural anthropologist (hired on traditional Miccosukee

issues), and their former Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Indian agent (who arranged

for the tribal land base in the so-called ‘‘permit’’ area in 1962). So I’m not surprised

that Interior has backed off a little bit.

So we seem to be able to head off some of the more outrageous threats of the government when they occur, but lawsuits are cumbersome and unwieldy. And as we

speak today, we still can’t build the houses we need.

We can’t build—

• even though we can finally afford it financially
30

• even though we comply with all environmental protection laws

• even though the government’s own water quality expert says we pose no pollution danger

• even though the government’s own permitting agency under the Clean Water

Act (the Corps of Engineers) says there’s no environmental harm and has issued

the section 404 permit

• even though the government’s own retained cultural anthropologist says that

to block tribal housing amounts to ‘‘cultural genocide.’’

Instead of ‘‘cultural genocide,’’ we want to protect our way of life and our culture

with strong self-government and traditional values. This is consistent with the

Park’s purposes and long standing Congressional policy to promote tribal self-determination and tribal traditions.

The Tribe has members living in trailers who need houses; extended families living in overcrowded houses of relatives; and members living out of the community

who long to live in the Miccosukee community.

Starting in 1992, the Park Service first said it needed ‘‘time’’ to review the Tribe’s

proposed plan for 65 houses along the existing road within the permit area (the permit gives the Park 30 days for the review). But after 2 years and frequent reminders without any action, we finally skipped the Park Service and applied directly to

the Corps of Engineers for the proper permits.

Then the Park said the Tribe had no land rights, and told the Corps of Engineers

that the Tribe couldn’t apply for section 404 dredge and fill permits because the

Tribe did not have a legally sufficient interest in the land on which it lived. The

Corps had always accepted permit applications from the Tribe and issued permits

in the Tribe’s name, but the Corps suspended review at the Park’s request. When

the Corps observed our evidence of bad faith by the Park Service, the Corps decided

to go forward despite Park objections.

After that, the Park Service said there could be a pollution problem, but the government’s own water quality expert testified that Miccosukee housing creates and

will create no water quality or pollution problem. So the Corps issued the section

404 permit under the Clean Water Act, finding no environmental harm from the

proposed 65 new houses.

Then the Park said the Tribe can’t build even with a Corps permit, without Park

permission. The Park claims that the 30 day right of review in the permit is an absolute veto.

Thereafter, under court order to do a review of the Tribe’s request, the Park said

the Tribe could have 65 houses, but they had to be in two rows, so many tribal

members have a house very close behind in their back yard. This takes new interior

roads and more dredge and fill material than building along the already existing

road, but the Indians are more ‘‘out of sight.’’

We’re not asking for much. Just leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. We’ll

protect the environment, protect water quality, assist in Everglades restoration.

We’ll accept the legal, enforceable obligation to protect the environment and do no

damage to the Park or other lands outside our area. And we’ve agreed to reasonable

height restriction, no commercial gaming, and no commercial aviation to protect the

character of the area.

Sometimes I think that this may be the problem. We’re willing to guarantee that

we won’t pollute and that we won’t have an adverse impact on the Everglades or

Everglades restoration. I think non-Indians worries that if the Indians can accept

and follow such laws, then the non-Indian man might have to accept and follow

such laws too.

Of course, non-Indian governments have a lot of those laws on the books, but they

sure have a hard time enforcing them. Governments say a lot of things, but talk

against pollution doesn’t stop the pollution.

We know, because we’re the only people who live in the Everglades. We’re the

ones who get non-Indian pollution on our land and in our water.

We do know, for sure, that if we agree to specific anti-pollution provisions (as we

are willing to do), then those laws certainly will be enforced against us. Non-Indian

law may not get enforced against non-Indians, but it always gets enforced against

the Indians.

But we will accept these environmental laws, including enforcement, because we

want to save the Everglades. The Everglades is our mother, and she is dying. We’re

not the destroyers; we’re not killing her. We’re trying to save her.

In court, we’re arguing for stronger environmental positions than the Federal

Government takes and we’re trying to enforce the Clean Water Act against the governments that ignore the law. Up here in Congress, we’re asking for tougher laws

against Everglades pollution sources. In Indian Country, we’re adopting scientif-
31

ically-based water quality standards that the State of Florida shrinks from due to

special interest pressure.

Everyone honors Marjory Stoneman Douglas, author of River of Grass and proponent of Everglades preservation. Ms. Douglas said, ‘‘The Indians before everyone

else knew that the Everglades were being destroyed.’’

What can I say to my tribal members when they ask— • We can finally afford it—Why can’t we build?

• We follow environmental laws—why can’t we build?

•They built employee housing, tourist hotel, restaurant in Flamingo in the

Park—why can’t we build?

•They built the road, put in electricity—why can’t we build?

•They built Shark Valley Tower a couple of miles away—why can’t we build?

•They signed a permit saying we can build—why can’t we build?

•There’s one million five hundred thousand acres in the Park, one hundred

thousand acres were ours—why can’t we build on three hundred or a thousand?

• Why won’t they leave us alone?

The only answer we understand so far is, ‘‘There’s law for Indians and there’s law

for non-Indians; it may look the same but it doesn’t work the same way.’’ It controls

and gets enforced against Indians, but it doesn’t control or get enforced against nonIndians or their government. We can see, for example, that the part of the permit

that says that we need Park review is enforced against us. So if the Park refuses

to do anything, we get nothing. But the part of the permit that says the review must

be done within 60 days is just disregarded, not enforced. And the part of the permit

that says we have a right to build—well, that doesn’t control the non-Indian.

So non-Indian law is easy to understand, as far as we can see. It just means, ‘‘the

non-Indian wins.’’

What I hope this Subcommittee will do, what I hope this Congress will do, is show

us Miccosukee Indians that we are wrong about ‘‘non-Indian law.’’ We hope you’ll

show us that Miccosukee Indians can be guaranteed rights of self-government on

their small lands, without paternalistic and misguided Park Service employees telling them what’s good for them, as long as Miccosukees protect the environment and

don’t harm anyone or any property outside our lands. We hope you’ll show us that

the high ideals to which this great country aspires have been achieved to the extent

that there is no longer, for the Miccosukees at least, selective enforcement of the

law. Miccosukees hope to see just one law—yours and mine—and that we’re all

equal under it together.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DEXTER LEHTINEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF

INDIANS OF FLORIDA

As a non-Indian, I cannot speak from an Indian heart; I leave that task to Chairman Cypress. But as General Counsel for the Miccosukee Tribe, I can describe the

legal background on the Tribe’s position on residency within the Park boundaries

and I can describe also what a lifelong resident of South Florida has seen through

a non-Indians eyes.

First, let me discuss the legal background. The term ‘‘Seminole’’ has been applied

improperly to all Florida Indians, and was misleadingly used in both state and Federal legislation until around the 1960’s or so, to include the distinct Miccosukee Indians. The advent of serious consideration to establishing a national park in the

Florida Everglades in the 1920’s finds the Miccosukees living throughout the southern Everglades, including but not limited to the 100,000 acre state Monroe Indian

Reservation in what is now Everglades National Park. The opening of Tamiami

Trail (the paved road across the Everglades linking Tampa to Miami, hence the

name ‘‘Ta-Miami’’) in 1927 and the authorization of Everglades National Park by

Congress in 1934 would change the lives of Miccosukees and their culture forever.

The Monroe Reservation was abolished in 1935 and a new Reservation much further north was substituted, where no Miccosukee then lived and where still to this

day none live. As Chairman Cypress has said many times, from the Indian viewpoint it is simply taking good land and trying to push the Indians to land nobody

wants. From a legal viewpoint, its taking land without permission.

Seeking to avoid a replay of the infamous Indian removal policies of the 19th century, and knowing the Miccosukees would not move to the new Reservation anyway

without force, the Roosevelt Administration visited the Miccosukees on the Trail,

promising that they would be allowed to remain in the Park. Reflecting this policy,

Everglades National Park Enabling Act of 1934 states that ‘‘Nothing in . . . this title

shall be construed to lessen any existing rights of the Seminole [Miccosukee] Indi-
32

ans which are not in conflict with the purposes for which Everglades National Park

is created.’’

Likewise, the floor discussion in Congress reflects the same policy:

‘‘By passing this bill we are placing them [Indians] in a home, and in a position

to live there where they should live. We believe they should be in there. . . .

They will be permitted to remain relatively undisturbed in their own country

and in their own homes.’’

This seemed sensible not only from the viewpoint of protecting the rights of the

Indians, but because the 1930 Report of the Secretary of the Interior on the desirability of a national park cited several factors, including ‘‘the present . . . Indian, are

sufficient to give the area a national interest.’’ A 1935 press release of the Department of the Interior states that ‘‘it is within the power of the Government and the

State of Florida to salvage and re-create the Everglades, with the Indians as part

of them, through meeting to a generous extent the Indians’ own wishes.’’

After the dedication of the Park in 1947, under governmental pressure to leave

the central areas of the Park, many Miccosukees moved their camps near Tamiami

Trail near the northern boundary of the Park. Throughout the 1950’s the Tribe

sought a land base in its homelands and an organizational structure to defend its

right to self-government. As a result, in 1962 the Tribe reorganized under the Indian Reorganization Act and the United States allocated an area within the Park

at its northern boundary for tribal development.

The area was called the ‘‘Tamiami Reservation’’ and was 500 feet into the Park

along a 5-mile road frontage at the northern edge of the Park. It was defined in

an agreement between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (later the Tribe was substituted) and the Park Service, a so-called ‘‘permit.’’ The Tribe had traditional use

and access in the Park, but this area was to be the Tribe’s land, for schools, police

station, health clinic, administration, and houses. The paved road (the Park’s northern boundary) was already there with utilities.

The BIA representative at the time, Reginald Miller, has testified under oath that

the area was for tribal self-government, permanent (no expiration date on the first

permit), and development of fixed structures. He said that Interior and BIA ‘‘worked

with the idea of finding a land base in the park’’ in order to ‘‘build houses! have

a school, a place for some medical attention, community facility, business enterprise,

and such things as a normal community might want.’’ Miller says it was ‘‘identified

as the Tamiami Indian Reservation,’’ was in the ‘‘Tribe’s traditional homeland,’’ and

was ‘‘a permanent site.’’ Miller summarized:

‘‘. . . [T]he government agencies assumed . . . that this was the Miccosukee homeland, and that they belonged there, that they should be there.’’

The Park Service’s own maps, distributed to the public in tourist brochures,

labelled the area ‘‘Miccosukee Indian Reservation,’’ until 1992 (when they changed

the designation to ‘‘cultural center’’; while on recent Park tourist guides all reference

to the Miccosukee area is dropped). The Park Service (and Federal courts) have recognized the permit area as ‘‘Indian country.’’

A 1962 BIA transmittal letter, explaining the permit, cited the 1934 statute and

concluded:

The implication was that Congress wanted to give every consideration to the

Seminoles [Miccosukees]. This permit follows the intent of Congress.

The BIA built a permanent administration building and started facilities such as

a clinic, while Dade County helped with a school. Over the ensuing years, the Tribe

expanded its facilities in the Tamiami Reservation (‘‘permit’’ area); by 1992 there

were a gymnasium, two schools, fire department, police department, senior center,

extensive offices, tribal court, health clinic and wellness center, and approximately

100 houses, as well as a tourist attraction Indian village. Outside the Park (but

within 500 feet or so) on new Tamiami Trail (which had been built just north of

the original Tamiami Trail) the Tribe had a restaurant, gas station, and grocery

store, and private (non-tribal) restaurant and motel had been built on private land

on new Tamiami Trail in the same area as well.

The Tribe complied with all laws, including environmental protection laws such

as the Clean Water Act, applying for and receiving section 404 dredge and fill permits in its own name from the Corps of Engineers.

But tension developed in the l990’s as the Park Service increasingly believed that

the Tribe’s mere presence was inconsistent with the purposes of the park. In 1994,

after two years of refusing to review the Tribe’s proposal for 65 houses along the

road in the permit area, the Tribe went directly to the Corps of Engineers for a

Clean Water Act section 404 permit. The Park Service told the Corps that the Tribe

had no land interest to qualify it to even apply for a permit. But after litigation exposed the weaknesses of the Park position the Corps went ahead with its review

and issued the permit, finding no adverse environmental impact.
33

Nonetheless, to this day the Park still says ‘‘no’’ to the tribal housing plan, asserting that the right of review in the permit gives them complete discretion to say no

for any reason; notwithstanding the clear statements in the permit that the Tribe

can build and develop the area for tribal purposes and notwithstanding the 60-day

limit on the Park’s review power.

So the Miccosukee Tribe wants its rights ‘‘reaffirmed’’ or ‘‘clarified.’’ as we believe

the Congress intended in 1934 in passing the Park Enabling Act and the government intended in 1962 in signing the permit. In the permit area or Tamiami Reservation, the key elements must encompass: • the right to govern themselves as they see fit (self government) as though it

were a reservation

• the right to develop the area as long as activities do no harm to the outside

environment or adjoining landholders (including the Park)

• oversight by normal enforcement mechanisms (such as Corps of Engineers for

Clean Water Act permits, Attorney General lawsuits for violations, etc.) but not

special enforcement by Park Service or Park ‘‘veto’’

• perpetual duration of these rights (no expiration)

The Miccosukee Tribe will guarantee (and will accept mandates of these guarantees by law) adherence to strict anti-pollution standards, and height, gaming, and

aviation restrictions. Even with limited time, let me re-emphasize this point—the

Tribe will accept, in law and in writing: • no harm to Everglades restoration and no adverse environmental impact outside the tribal area (including special directions to the Corps of Engineers to

ensure in all 404 dredge and fill permits that there is no adverse impact on

water quality of hydroperiod, on Everglades restoration, or to the Park’s environment)

• no commercial aviation and no commercial gaming

• height restrictions equal to those imposed upon itself by the Park Service

within the Park itself.

• jurisdiction in Federal court for the Attorney General to bring any action

against the Tribe to enforce these provisions.

What does all this means in human terms? What do I see as a non-Indian born

in south Florida with 8 years service in the Florida Legislature and 4 years as

United States Attorney?

I see a government that can’t or won’t control pollution from 650,000 houses and

commercial businesses, so they want to stop 65 houses that their own experts say

won’t pollute. That is, if you can’t or won’t solve the real problems connected to big

guys, then at least look like you’re doing something by solving made-up connected

to little guys.

I see a government that allows hotels, paved roads, employee housing, large

science research buildings within the Park, taking up far more than 333 acres, but

it wants to stop Indian buildings and housing on 333 acres. That is, the Park actually testified that it might not be permitted by law to allow Indian buildings because

the National Park Service Organic Act requires that parks be kept in their natural

state, even as they build tourist hotels, restaurants and housing for their own employees.

I see the only people who live in the Everglades (Miccosukee Indians) having their

homelands destroyed by non-Indian pollution and government neglect, but their own

non-polluting structures are blocked by the government. That is, those who don’t

pollute are held up as a straw man by an embarrassed government to cover those

with who do pollute.

Interestingly enough, I see a Tribe asking for no more than what it, and most

non-Indians, thought the Tribe already had. After all—

•The 1934 Congressional Record, referring to the Miccosukees in the newly-authorized Park, said ‘‘they will be permitted to remain relatively undisturbed in

their own country in their own homes.’’

•The BIA representative who established the ‘‘permit’’ says, ‘‘This land was set

aside for the Miccosukee Indians for all the things we stated, homes and things

like that . . .’’ as a ‘‘permanent site’’ in the ‘‘Miccosukee’s homeland.’’

• Both the Department of the Interior and the Federal courts have classified the

area officially as ‘‘Indian Country.’’

•The Florida Department of Transportation has sign on Tamiami Trail that

says ‘‘Entering Miccosukee Indian Reservation.’’

•The Park’s own tourist map said ‘‘Miccosukee Indian Reservation’’ until 1992;

and state maps today (the Atlas of Atlas, Florida Gazetteer, and Rand McNally

Florida Road Map all say ‘‘Miccosukee Indian Reservation.’’

Most importantly, I see a group of Indians who want nothing more that what you

and I want—
34

•Freedom from governmental interference, from bureaucrats telling us what’s

best for us, in their opinion.

•Freedom to develop their own community, as long as they follow the laws that

apply equally to all as us, including environmental protection and respect for

adjoining landowners.

•Freedom to control their own lives on their own land, at no harm to others.

• In short, simply freedom under law. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Committee on behalf of H.R. 190, a bill which I have sponsored both in this Congress

and the previous one. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, let me be perfectly clear: this is a very important bill which will carry out the longstanding intent

of Congress in preserving and protecting the rights of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. This bill was introduced in a truly bipartisan fashion, with my Florida colleagues Congresswoman Carrie Meek, and Congressmen Lincoln Diaz-Balart

and Dan Miller joining me as original cosponsors.

This legislation allows for the good people of the Miccosukee Tribe to live in perpetuity in the so-called permit area of Everglades National Park. The Miccosukees

have lived and worked for literally hundreds of years in this area. The rights of the

Miccosukees are recognized by the Everglades National Park Enabling Act of 1934

and their special use permit.

In 1934, the Everglades National Park Enabling Act specifically provided that

rights of the Indians were protected. Subsequently, in 1962, and 1973, the tribe was

guaranteed that they could build homes, schools, clinics, and other tribal buildings

in the 300-plus acres identified in their special use permit.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Park Service now seeks to restrict Miccosukee

activities on their own land—even after the tribe has complied with all applicable

laws. The intent of the Congress in 1934 was to guarantee the Indians the freedom

to live, work, and govern themselves as they wish in this area, not to be governed

by the National Park Service. This bill will allow for Miccosukee self-government

to continue and prosper.

These Indians seek nothing more than what we promised them when we passed

the park bill in 1934, nothing more than was said on the floor of this House, nothing

more than the Department of the Interior confirmed in the special use permit.

In 196O, Justice Hugo Black wrote, ‘‘Great nations, like great men, should keep

their promise.’’ With this bill, we keep our promise to these native Americans, to

these fellow citizens of the United States.

They deserve nothing less.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As a South Florida Representative,I am concerned that the right of the

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida to live in their native homelands is protected

and properly understood, as previously recognized by Congress and the Department

of the Interior.

In this respect, I support H.R. 190, a bill to amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to

provide for the establishment of the Everglades National Park in the State of Florida and for other purposes,’’ approved May 30, 1934, to clarify certain rights of the

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. This language clarifies 16 USC 410(b), part

of the Everglades National Park Enabling Act of 1934, to protect the rights of the

Miccosukees (as Seminoles who lived in the Park). I believe that the language is

reasonable and well-founded in that it fulfills original Congressional intent and codifies rights already recognized by the Department of the Interior in previously-issued

‘‘special use permits.’’ As was said on the floor of the House by Representative

DeRouen in explaining the Park Enabling Act on May 24, 1934, the Congress seeks

simply to ensure that ‘‘. . . we are placing them in a home, and in a position to live,

there where they should live,’’ and that ‘‘. . . they will be permitted to live . . . in their

own country and in their own homes.’’

I believe that the most effective way to clarify these rights would be to support

H.R. 190, introduced by my colleague Mr. Hastings. I appreciate your consideration

of this legislation in the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.