OKLAHOMA TRIBAL CONCERNS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE \fERICAt~ AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

NATIVE AMERICANS IN OKLAHOMA AND THEIR TRIBAL ISSUES 

JANUARY 20, 1994-TAHLEQUAH, OK 

Serial No. 103-65 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16· 046707- 1 
COMMI'M'EE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLI'M'LE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CalifoJ;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M . BARRETT, Wii!COnsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Stoff Director 

RicHARD MELTZER, General Coun.~~el 

DANIEL VAL KisH, Republican Sto.ff Director 

SUBCOMMITl'EE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico, Chairman 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut RanJcifl8 &publican Member 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DON YOUNG, Alaska 

Samoa RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota KEN CALVERT, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

TADD JOHNSON, Stoff Director 

MARIE HoWARD, Pro(e..WTUJI Stoff Member 

BARBARA RoBLES, Clerlr 

RICHARD HOUGHTON, &publican CoulUiel on Native American A/fairtl 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: January 20, 1994 ............................................................................ . Member statements: Hon. Mike Synar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Okla- homa .............................................................................................................. . Hon. Bill Richardson, chairman, Subcommittee on Native American Mfairs, and Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico .... . Background on Oklahoma Tribal Concerns .......................................................... . 

Witness statements: Panel consisting of: Hon. Wilma P. Mankiller, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation ............... . Prepared statement of Ms. Mankiller ............................................. . Hon. Bill Anoatubby, Governor, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, OK ............. . Prepared statement of Mr. Anoatubby ............................................ . Hon. Larry Nuckolls, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee, OK .......................................................................................................... . Prepared statement of Mr. Nuckolls ............................................... . Panel consisting of: Hon. Bill S. Fife, Principal Chief, Creek Nation, Okmulgee, OK ......... . Prepared statement of Mr. Fife ....................................................... . Perry Hauser, Chairman, Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association, Seneca, OK .................................................................................................. . 

Dii:clia~!~~; ::~~{Jkl~~~: ... ~~~~~~~--~~~~~ --~-~-~~~ Prepared statement of Martha Banderas, Vice Chairperson, Apache 

Business Committee, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma .............................. . Panel consisting of: Hon. Elmer Manatowa, Principal Chief, Sac and Fox Nation, Stroud, 

OK .......................................................................................................... . Prepared statement of Mr. Manatowa ............................................ . Leonard Hrujo, Tribal Planner, Seminole Nation, Weowoka, OK ........ . Prepared statement of Seminole Nation ......................................... . Carmelita Skeeter, Director, Indian Health Care Resource Center, Tulsa, OK .............................................................................................. . Prepared statement of Ms. Skeeter ................................................. . Matthew Kauley, Director, Association of American Indian Physi- cians, Oklahoma City, OK ................................................................... . Prepared statement of Mr. Kauley ..................... , ............................ . 

APPENDIX 

January 20, 1994 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

Page 

1 

1 

3 

6 

8 

10 

18 

20 

28 

30 

50 

52 

56 

57 

59 

71 

74 

84 

86 

97 

99 

104 

106 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma: Letter and 

documentation from Hon. John Ross, Chief, dated January 31, 1994 ..... 111 

Oklahoma Indian Mineral Owners Association: Comments on hearing on Oklahoma Tribal Concerns from Eddie Jacobs, Chairman, dated 

February 9, 1994 ........................................................................................... 206 

Native Americans for a Clean Environment: Letter and testimony from 

Julie Moss, Economic Project Coordinator and Grassroots Repatriation 

Specialist, dated February 3, 1994 .............................................................. 271 

Oklahoma City Area Office Funding . .. . .. ... . .. .... ... .. .... .... .... ... ...... .... ....... .... ..... 280 

(Ill) 

OKLAHOMA TRIBAL CONCERNS 

THURSDAY,JANUARY20, 1004 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS, 

Tahlequah, OK. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m. in the 

Council Chambers, W.W. Keeler Tribal Complex, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, Hon. Bill Richardson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE SYNAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. SYNAR [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to order. Obviously you have noticed I am not Bill Richardson. I am Mike 

Synar, due to the weather, Mr. Richardson's plane has been delayed. We expect him here literally within the next 30 minutes, 

and as soon as he does arrive, we will have him join us. 

I thought it was important to get started, however, because I do 

not want to really cut this off or try to squeeze too much into a 

short amount of time. What we thought we would do is start with 

the first panel in anticipation of Mr. Richardson coming. 

First of all, let me welcome each and every one of you all here 

today. This is literally the first hearing in my tenure in Congress, and I think probably in the last 15 years in Oklahoma, dealing 

with the issue of Oklahoma Native Americans and the tribal issues. Many of you all are familiar that we have over 250,000 Native Americans in our great state of Oklahoma, representing over 

37 different tribes. You are also familiar with the fact that we are 

the only non-reservation state in the nation. This gives us a unique 

status when we deal with issues with respect to our Native Americans. 

I want to start by first of all thanking Chief Wilma Mankiller for 

hosting today, and particularly Lynn Howard and her staff for all 

the hard logistical work. This is not something that is easy to do 

and we appreciate the fact that they have gone to such great 

lengths these last few weeks. The hearing today is an attempt for us here on the federal level 

to exchange ideas with others, to wrestle with hard questions and 

hear first-hand about successful programs that are underway in 

Oklahoma with our Native Americans. It is also an opportunity to 

explore federal legislation and bureaucratic changes which are so 

critical in the relationship between Native Americans and our federal government. 

(1) 
2 

I think the goal is to find a better way to achieve a balance, a 

balance between finite resources and more funding for social services, as well as improving the federal trust responsibilities and including successful self-governance as we begin to proceed through 

the next decade and into the next century. 

With new global competition and the need for local economic development, I think today's hearing will help us learn first-hand 

how the federal government, state government, as well as the sovereign nations which are represented here today can work together 

to improve the quality of life for Native Americans in Oklahoma. 

Now let me give you a couple of rules so that everyone will know 

that we are not trying to pick on anybody. These are the rules that 

the Subcommittee has always had, whether they meet here in 

Oklahoma or around the country or in Washington. We are going 

to ask each one of the panelists as they come up to be recognized 

and their entire testimony will be made part of the record, but we 

would ask you to present your testimony in summarized form in no 

more than five minutes. The lights that you see on the table in 

front of you are important. We will have a green light for the beginning of your testimony, when the amber light comes on you 

have one minute remaining, and when the red light comes on we 

would ask you to complete the sentence that you are on so that we 

can get as much testimony in today as we can. 

Now, for those of you who are not necessarily testifying today, we 

will also allow two weeks for the record to remain open, and we 

will have all those testimonies and materials submitted for the 

record that are to be included in this hearing. So we hope that you 

will take advantage of that too. 

At this time I would insert into the record the statement of 

Chairman Richardson and background information on the subject 

of today's hearing. 

[Tne statement follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAJf BILL RICHARDSON 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

GOOD MORNING. 

OKLAHOMA TRIBAL CONCERNS 

JANUARY 20, 1994 

TAHLEQUAH I OKLAHOMA 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE 

ON NATURAL RESOURCES WILL COME TO ORDER. 

THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WAS FORMED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 103RD 

CONGRESS AT THE URGING OF SEVERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS INCLUDING 

MYSELF AND MIKE SYNAR, AS WELL AS INDIAN TRIBES ACROSS THE COUNTRY 

WHO FELT NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES DESERVED MORE VISIBILITY IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LEGISLATION AND 

OVERSIGHT OF MOST PROGRAMS WHICH AFFECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL 

NATIVE AMERICANS. I AM PROUD TO HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO CHAIR THIS 

MOST IMPORTANT PANEL. 

IN OUR FIRST YEAR OF EXISTENCE, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS PROVED 

TO BE ONE OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE IN CONGRESS. WE HELD OVER TWENTY 

HEARINGS AND PASSED 5 BILLS INTO LAW. WE BROKE A 6 YEAR LOG JAM 

ON LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

INVESTIGATED AND CONDUCTED OVERSIGHT IN THE AREAS OF GAMING, 

URANIUM MINING CLEAN UP, BIA REORGANIZATION, LEAKY UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANKS, TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT, YOUTH DETENTION FACILITIES 

DAM SAFETY, AND OTHER MATTERS. 

WE WORKED WITH OTHER COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE TO ENSURE. 

AMENDMENTS HELPFUL TO TRIBES WERE INCLUDED IN ENVIRONMENTAL 

LEGISLATION, MINING REFORM, AND TAX PROVISIONS. 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO TOOK THE TIME TO VISIT TRIBES IN 
4 

CONNECTICUT, WYOMING, MONTANA, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA TO SEE AND 

HEAR FIRST HAND THE CONCERNS OF INDIANS IN THOSE STATES . 

WE HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY BUT AS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS - OUR WORK 

HAS JUST BEGUN. 

I WANT TO THANK MY GOOD FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, MIKE SYNAR, FOR 

INVITING US DOWN HERE. HE IS A VERY STRONG ADVOCATE FOR INDIANS IN 

WASHINGTON. WHEN MIKE GRABS HOLD OF AN ISSUE YOU CAN BE ASSURED OF 

THREE THINGS: 

1. IT WILL BE INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY 

2. A WORKABLE SOLUTION WILL BE PROPOSED AND 

3. HE WILL CARRY THE FIGHT UNTIL THAT SOLUTION HAS BEEN 

IMPLEMENTED. 

HE IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE LEGISLATORS IN WASHINGTON. 

I'M SURE MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT MIKE TOOK ON THE ENORMOUS ISSUE 

OF INDIAN TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE BIA. THIS WAS AN ISSUE 

THAT WENT IGNORED FOR DECADES BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE TOO BIG, 

TOO CONFUSING AND IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX. WELL, MIKE WENT AT IT 

HEADLONG! HE SPENT 5 YEARS PICKING IT APART AND GETTING TO THE 

HEART OF THE ISSUES. KJ:S BJ:-PARTJ:SAN SUBCOMKJ:TTEE REPORT EXPLAINED 

IN GREAT DETAIL THE INEFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THE BIA MANAGES TRIBAL 

AND INDIVIDUAL INDIAN ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO 

RECONCILIATION OF THESE ACCOUNTS AND THE LOW RATE OF RETURN TRIBES 

RECEIVE ON THEIR INVESTMENTS. 

MIKE HAS A BILL PENDING BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH WILL 

BEGIN TO ADDRESS SOMEIF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF 

THESE FUNDS. I AGREE WITH HIS APPROACH TO ALLOW TRIBES MORE ACCESS 

AND CONTROL OVER THEIR ACCOUNTS. THIS BILL IS A GOOD FIRST STEP IN 
5 

THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND I EXPECT THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO VOTE ON THIS 

MEASURE VERY SOON. 

I ALSO WANT TO THANK PRINCIPAL CHIEF WILMA MANI<ILLER FOR 

ALLOWING US TO USE THE CHEROKEE TRIBAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO CONDUCT 

THIS HEARING. YOU AND YOUR STAFF HAVE BEEN MOST ACCOMMODATING. 

THE CHEROKEES AND OTHER GREAT INDIAN NATIONS OF OKLAHOMA HAVE A 

LONG AND UNIQUE HISTORY WHICH I AM COMMITTED TO LEARING ABOUT 

THROUGH THIS AND FUTURE HEARINGS. 

MY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS IN NEW MEXICO AND INCLUDES OVER 

20 INDIAN PUEBLOS AS WELL AS PARTS OF NAVAJO AND APACHE 

RESERVATIONS. I KNOW THEM AND MOST ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THEM QUITE 

WELL. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT AS CHAIRMAN OF THIS 

SUBCOMMITTEE, I TRAVEL TO PARTS OF INDIAN COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE 

SOUTHWEST SO THAT I CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW NATIONAL 

INDIAN POLICY AFFECTS DIFFERENT REGIONS. THIS IS WHY I AM HERE 

TODAY - I AM HERE TO LISTEN AND LEARN ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS. I LOOK 

FORWARD TO HEARING FROM ALL OF THE WITNESSES. 

f<.. LC 0 C-fll I "I.L 
6 

BACKGROUND 

The State of Oklahoma was originally to be the "Indian 

Territory" to the West of the Mississippi which was promised to the 

Indian tribes of the Southeastern United States. The 1830s was the 

decade when the policy of "Indian removal" was adopted by Congress 

and implemented by the Jackson Administration. The tragic "Trail 

of Tears" was the result of Indian removal and many Indian people 

died on that journey West . Scores of other tribes from all around 

the United States were also moved to the State of Oklahoma. 

With the passage of t~ Dawes .. f.ct, known as the General 

Allotment Act, in 1887, the llr&nll ~ of Oklahoma were divided 

up into individual allotments in an effort to make the Indians 

farmers. 

Today there are no reservations in Oklahoma, although there is a great deal of land held in trust by the United States. The 

Indian population of Oklahoma is the largest of any state and 

exceeds a quarter of a million individual Indians. There are thirty seven Federally recognized tribes in the State of Oklahoma. 

The second largest tribe in the United States, the Cherokees, are located in Tahlequah which is the is the of the Subco-ittee 

hearing. There are two Area Offices of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs in Oklahoma: one in Muskogee and another in Anadarko. 

Of interest to the Oklahoma Indians are the following issues: 

SELF-GOVERNANCE 

The Self-Governance Demonstration Project began in 1988 as an amendment to the Indian Self-Determination Act. Under Title III of 

the Act participating tribes can consolidate programs and 

prioritize spending. In 1991 an amendment to the Demonstration 

extended the duration of the Project to 1996. A bill to make SelfGovernance permanent passed the Senate in Movellber. Chairman 

Richardson is sponsoring a companion bill and the House 

Subco .. ittee on Native American Atfairs vill hold hearings on SelfGovernance early in the 2nd session of the lOJrd Congress. The 

Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe to enter into a SelfGovernance compact with the Secretary of Interior. Other tribes in 

Oklahoma are concerned about budget shortfalls under the Project 

and have proposed changes to the permanent Self-Governance bill. 

HEALTH CARE 

On November 20, the President's proposed Health Security Act was introduced in both Houses of Congress. Majority leader Gephart 

introduced HR 3600 on the House side along with 99 co-sponsors. 

under the bill, Native Americans would be eligible to receive 

health care by enrolling in health plans offered through newly 

created regional health alliances. However, the option for Indian 

people to continue receiving care though the Indian Health Service 

is included in the bill. Oklahoma tribes are concerned about how 
7 

Ilia propoaal vill allow for tbe iiiPr~nt of bealtb care MrVicaa 

to Indian people. Ill 3600 baa been referred to the s~ttH 

and ve vill be boldi119 bHrift98 on it. 

BCOIIOIIlC DIVELOPIIDT 

'!'be State of Oklabolla and tbe Indian tribea of the State have 

tbua far been uneucceaaful in MCJOtiati119 Clau III 9aai119 c~. Aa a raault, there are uny bift90 balla in tbe State bllt no full acala cuinoa u yet. A4riC11ltura and •nervY reaourcea provide econoaic develo ... nt for aoM Oklabou tribn. 'l'ribel concama incliiCla probl.. vitb the State and tribel job 

atiiiUlation. 

BIA ~RIZATIOM 

'l'be tribea of Oklabolla are concerned about tbe recent propoaal 

to conaolicleta tbe Anadarko Ar .. Office vitb tbe lluakOCJM Area 

Office. 'l'be BIA baa confined tbat Oklabou ia tbe only atata 

vbere aiiCb a COIWOlidation 1a plenned. It ia .. tt.ated tbat tbe 

251 poaitiona in tbe tvo Officu would be Cllt in balf. '!'be 

Oklabolla tribn an concerned tbat tbe proviaion of -rvicu vill 

decline. '!'be ~Sttae believ .. that cbancJH •IICb •• tbia 

abould alvaya be done in conaultation vitb tbe affac:tad tribea • Aa yet tbi• cSoae not .... to be tbe cue. 
8 

Mr. SYNAR. I call on our first panel, if they would come forward. 

We have the Honorable Wilma Mankiller, Principal Chief of the 

Cherokee nation; Bill Anoatubby, the Governor of the Chickasaw 

Nation in Ada and Larry Nuckolls, the Governor of the AbsenteeShawnee Tribe. 

Welcome. It is a great honor to see some old friends who I have 

worked with through the years. I think it is only appropriate that 

we start with the host today. So Wilma, the chair is yours. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. WILMA P. MANKILLER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION; HON. BILL ANOATUBBY, 

GOVERNOR, CHICKASAW NATION, ADA, OK; AND HON. LARRY 

NUCKOLLS, GOVERNOR, ABSENTEE SHAWNEE TRffiE, SHAWNEE, OK 

STATEMENT OF HON. WilMA P. MANKILLER 

Ms. MANKILLER. Thank you. Since we are chairing and I would 

like to give other people an opportunity to testify, my testimony 

will be brief, and then we have written comments to submit for a 

formal part of the record. 

I would like to thank you, Congressman Synar, and also thank 

the staff, your staff and Congressman Richardson and his staff for 

doing this field hearing in the state of Oklahoma. All too often, 

Oklahoma is neglected and we have to fight to be included in many 

of the things in Washington, D.C. As you know it is an ongoing 

problem in many federal programs to make sure that Oklahoma is 

included and not excluded because it is not considered to be a reservation state. So it is an important signal to all of us in Oklahoma 

that you are here. 

One of the issues that I wanted to comment on, and probably the 

most important issue today for the record, is the issue of self-governance. Our tribe is one of the first tribes that entered into the 

self-governance compact, along with a number of other tribes, and 

the self-governance program has allowed us to have control over 

the allocation of our own resources. We are very concerned that the 

U.S. government will see this as just another demonstration project 

and will not make this legislation permanent. 

I know that Congressman Richardson in the House and Senator 

McCain in the Senate have both been interested in making this 

legislation permanent, and we strongly support that. It has allowed 

us to allocate the resources where they are most needed, and respond to local needs, and it has been successful from our stand-. point. So we wanted to make sure that we are very strongly supporting that. 

I also believe that the self-governance project or demonstration 

project, as it is now known, should include both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. This piecemeal way of 

dealing with self-governance just through the BIA is not going to 

work. I think it has to be kind of across-the-board. 

Briefly, one of the other issues-and this is explained much more 

fully and at length-is the fact that still in the allocation of resources for health care, Oklahoma tribes and tribal people are 

under-funded. There has to be more equity in the funding for tribal 
9 

people in Oklahoma. Governor Anoatubby has taken a leadership 

role on making sure that we are funded. 

Just to give you an example, in Oklahoma, the average health 

care cost per person is about $2700 per year, less than $900 is 

available, however, to individual Indian clients through IHS and 

other federal programs. So that is a huge issue. 

We are also very, very concerned that the message of self-governance that the United States Congress puts forward in these bills 

gets filtered down to every level of the bureaucracy. Always there 

are these great speeches about supporting tribal governments and 

that sort of thing in Washington from the leadership, but it needs 

to permeate every layer of these agencies, people we deal with on 

a day-to-day basis. I think that is very, very important. As you 

know, we have had chronic funding problems in Indian health care, 

which limits our ability to provide health care. And that is also 

more fully explained in the written testimony. 

Health care is not the only issue we are concerned about. The 

BIA funds for operating Indian schools are terribly insufficient. The 

fact that our school, Sequoyah Indian School, has managed to provide a decent education to students with the kind of funding we receive today is nothing short of a miracle. And if we did not have 

the kind of dedicated teachers that we have and staff there working with the students, then we would not be able to do the kinds 

of things that we are doing now. Almost every year, the Cherokee 

Nation Tribal Council augments the funding there. 

Let me sum up by also pointing out that finally and most importantly, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs now has a consolidation 

program that would consolidate the Muskogee and the Anadarko 

offices, which is both unfair to the tribes on the western part of the 

state and to the tribes in this part of the state. If they choose 

Tulsa, the people on the west side will have to drive across the 

state to go to Tulsa. If they choose Anadarko, we will have to drive 

across the state to go to Anadarko. There surely is a way of 

streamlining those offices in a more efficient way so that the tribes 

on the west side are served and we are served. I think that is very, 

very important. 

And I would like to make a couple of comments later on the trust 

fund issue if there is an opportunity to do so. Thank you very 

much. [Editor's note.-The book Tahlequah, NSU, and the Cherokees can be found in the committee's files.) 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Mankiller follows:) 
10 

TESTI1\10NY OF WILMA P. MANKILLER, 

PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF CHEROKEE NATION, 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JA!'I.'UARY 20, 1994 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Wilma Mankiller; I am the Principal Chief of Cherokee 

Nation, the second largest Indian tribe in the United States. I want to thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on behalf of my people on the importance of Self-Governance and what 

that term really means in Indian country. Before I begin 1 will point out that my written 

testimony addresses issues and problems that I will not get to in my oral testimony . So I refer 

the Chairman and the Subcommittee to my written testimony for a more complete statement of 

Cherokee Nation's concerns, especially in regard to Congressional support of Indian economic 

development programs. 

We at Cherokee Nation applaud your commitment to advancing the policy of SelfGovernance and your efforts to make it a permanent federal program. Cherokee Nation was 

among the first tribes to enter into a Self-Governance compact with the United States under Title 

III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Having just executed a 

compact for IHS programs last summer, Cherokee Nation has now assumed its responsibilities 

as a Self-Governance tribe to review and enhance the delivery of health services through 

restructuring of the Cherokee Rural Health Network. We believe it is essential to the long term 

success of our health programs that Self-Governance be made permanent. We urge you to 

consider including IHS within the scope of HR 3508 when mark-up begins. 

The status of Indian tribes as sovereign governments, ~specially Self-Governance tribes, 

places a heavy responsibility on both the tribes and the federal government to assure that health 

programs for Indians are responsive to needs and lead to improvement of the overall health of 

persons served by the Indian health care system. The solemn covenants to provide adequate 

health care to the tribes made by the federal government were not merely gratuitous promises 

to Indian people. Rather, these are obligations of the government arising out of treaties, 

agreements, and statutory law in return for cessions of millions of acres of land and other 

significant considerations given by Indian people to the United States. 

Despite Congress' lofty expressions in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to 

promote the highest level of health care for Indians, Congress has failed to provide adequate 

funding to achieve the clearly-stated purposes of that Act. In Oklahoma, the average health care 

cost per person is approximately $2700 per year. Less than $900 is available to Indian clients 

through IHS and other federal programs. 

We also feel that the complex funding mechanisms proposed by the President in his 

American Health Care Security Act may be inadequate to fully fund the cost of delivering health 
11 

services by Indian Health Service or Self-Governance tribes undertaking IHS programs at levels 

consistent with the government's trust obligations to Indian people. To be consistent with the 

principles of Self-Governance, we feel that the Administration should have consulted with the 

tribes in drafting the Indian and IHS sections of the bill. We hope Congress listens carefully 

to the tribes in the upcoming debate on national health care legislation and its impact on Indian 

people. 

The recent elimination of funding through the Centers for Disease Control, interrupting 

a number of IHS AIDS programs, is an example of how funding cutbacks impact Indian country. 

We are faced with an alarming increase in HIV -positive Native Americans and patients who have 

developed AIDS. We are expanding our AIDS awareness programs just as the funding for AIDS 

programs through IHS is being reduced. Essential AIDS treatment drugs such as AZT have 

been eliminated from the. IHS pharmaceutical formulary. The wisdom of putting tribes in 

control of their own destiny through Self-Governance will be seriously undermined if they are 

denied the very resources necessary to make adequate health care available to Indian people. 

By assuming full responsibility for planning, designing and implementing health, social 

and educational programs and services previously undertaken by BIA or IHS, Self-Governance 

tribes have become acutely aware of the inadequacies in the funding and the allocation of 

funding appropriated by Congress for other Indian programs besides health care. 

Chronic funding problems are by no means confined to Indian health care. Indian 

education programs have experienced a similar fate throughout the 20th Century. Since the birth 

of this country, the United States Senate approved some 400 treaties with Indian tribes, 120 of 

which contain education provisions. Nearly one billion acres of land were ceded by tribes in 

these treaties which the federal government viewed in part as agreements to acquire Indian land 

in exchange for education. Now, 125 years after the close of the treaty period , education 

programs for Indians remain critically underfunded . 

For instance, funds allocated by BIA for operating Indian schools are simply insufficient 

to meet the basic education needs of Native American students. We have first-hand knowledge 

of this problem through our experience in operating Sequoyah Indian School on the highway just 

west of this complex. The formula used to allocate BIA school funds, based on the "Weighted 

Student Unit" ("WSU") formula , continues to use dollar figures that were determined to be 

grossly inadequate nearly four years ago. The national average of expenditures per student in 

non-Indian schools is $5245 , and in Oklahoma, $3791 . BlA schools are allocated a paltry 

$2,619 per WSU. The present BIA allocation should be increased to at least the $3499 per 

WSU recommended by a BIA Working Committee 2 112 years ago. 

Similar funding deficiencies have occurred in the Johnson O'Malley Program. JOM has 

been a supplemental program since 1934. Since 1986, JOM has been experiencing a 

simultaneous steady decline in funding and steady increase in student participation . JOM 

funding should be increased by at least SlO million per year from the current $23 million to $33 

million per year in order to match this sharp increase in student participation. 

2 
12 

Notwithstanding the general inadequacy of Indian education funding, our education 

programs always seem particularly vulnerable in the struggle for federal dollars. Each year, for 

example, desperately needed funds are set aside for Indian Adult Education programs. The mere 

$3.5 million intended for FY 1994 has been diverted out of the program and into Flood Relief. 

We do not question the merits of the Flood Relief program, but we do question the wisdom of 

tapping of critically needed Indian education dollars. 

Another area experiencing chronic problems is the funding of the government's contract 

support obligations under its annual funding agreements and 638 contracts with tribes. In past 

years, BIA has consistently underestimated contract support needs, a practice which leads to an 

inevitable shortfall in this item of cost. The shortfall in FY 1992 of approximately $16 million 

was funded with FY l993pro~:rammatic dollars. Cherokee Nation feels that the BIA should not 

have to siphon program funds to pay indirect cost obligations. A recent announcement in the 

Federal Register indicates that the FY 1993 shortfall will be funded with 1994 contract support 

monies, and this, in tum, will contribute to a potentially greater shortfall in FY 1995. Part of 

the shortfall problem can be attributed to the lack of incentive to keep indirect cost rates as 

efficient as possible. Currently, the process actually tends to penalize those tribes with efficient 

contract support cost rates. The Subcommittee should consider requiring the agencies to develop 

a methodology for addressing the tribes' indirect cost needs. 

The contract support cost shortfall problem is insidious, but the Bureau appears to be 

doing little about it. This Subcommittee should confront BIA and demand a solution. We 

recommend that BIA be required to prepare a 5-year forecast of contract support needs, that the 

forecast be revised annually, that each year the projected needs be reported to Congress and the 

tribes, and that the projected need be included within Interior's annual budget request to 

Congress. We suggest that you consider including language to this effect in H.R. 3508. 

Cherokee Nation and several other Self-Governance tribes feel that the Subcommittee 

should also consider a clarifying change in Section 403(d) of H.R. 3508 relating to transfers of 

federal funds to the tribes under their annual funding agreements. The Senate Committee has 

interpreted this same language in Senator McCain's bill to authorize lump-sum payments to the 

tribes on semi-annual or quarterly basis, but the Bureau and IHS appear to be taking the position 

that they are nevertheless bound by Treasury regulations which would prohibit such payments. 

We disagree with the agencies' position but would request that you clarify Section 403(d) to 

expressly authorize lump-sum payments under funding agreements entered into under Title III 

or the new Title IV of P.L. 93-638. 

I would also request that the Subcommittee consider another clarifying change to Section 

403(b)(l) of H.R. 3508, one which would expressly authorize tribes to include in their compacts 

employment and training programs undertaken pursuant to P.L. 102-477, the Indian 

Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act. The Departments of Interior 

and Labor appear to be taking the position that these valuable programs cannot be integrated into 

a Self-Governance compact. Again, we disagree with their position but feel that the most 

expedient solution would be a clarifying change to Section 403(b) of H.R. 3508. 

3 
13 

Again, Chairman Richardson, we greatly appreciate your interest in Indian issues and 

your support for the Self-Governance project. I for one feel that Self-Governance has the 

potential to occupy a central position in federal Indian policy in the coming century. 

Accordingly, the manner in which Self-Governance is implemented in these early years of the 

program, and the level of financial support it receives from Congress, will fix the course for the 

program over the next decade or longer and will determine whether it ultimately succeeds or 

becomes yet another wrong tum among the many, many wrong turns in the history of Indian 

affairs in our country. As this Subcommittee takes on the cause of Self-Governance, it should 

be aware that although the program has been federally mandated as a demonstration project for 

several years, it has not been accepted at all levels of BIA and IHS. We continue to experience 

agency resistance to implementation of Self-Governance, especially within IHS. 

Because the purpose of the Self-Governance program is to enhance the inherent 

sovereignty of tribal governments and strengthen the government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and Indian tribal governments, the program should be strictly limited 

to specific, federally-recognized Indian tribes. Tribal organizations, alliances, and/or coalitions 

which are not federally recognized as tribes should not be admitted as direct participants in the 

program. The Subcommittee should consider adding language to the permanent Self-Governance 

bill making it clear that only federally-recognized tribes are eligible. 

The success of the Self-Governance program depends upon Congressional support of 

offices of self-governance within Interior and Indian Health Service. For example, in the 

Interior's office, one staff person performs all budget functions and coordinates finance activities 

for more than $100 million in self-governance funding. With the possibility of Navajo Nation 

and numerous smaller tribes entering the program, funding through the program soon may 

exceed $500 million per year. Clearly, the staffing of the office must be increased and its 

operations adequately funded to accommodate the workload of such a rapidly expanding 

program. With the gradual expansion of the Self-Governance program over the next several 

years there should be proportionate increases in the financial support of the two offices of SelfGovernance. 

As more and more tribes are admitted into the Self-Governance program, and especially 

if Navajo Nation adopts Self-Governance, the need to restructure and streamline BIA and IHS 

will become unavoidable. I would like to ask the Subcommittee to keep two considerations in 

mind as the process of restructuring unfolds. 

First, the growth of the Self-Governance program and the concomitant streamlining of 

the agencies should not be viewed as an opportunity to cut back the funding of Indian programs. 

Senator McCain has expressed his sensitivity to this danger and warned against it. I think this 

Subcommittee should also be vigilant against efforts to cut programmatic funding as the federal 

agencies, once our principal advocates of Indian programs, play a smaller roll in the 

management of Indian programs as a result of Self-Governance. 

4 
14 

Second, the Subcommittee should ensure that the tribes themselves are consulted and 

participate in the planning and implementation of agency restructuring. There is real danger that 

the agencies will give only lip service to tribal participation. 

An example of this has just occurred within the BIA here in Oklahoma. The Department 

of Interior, after consulting few if any affected tribes and with almost no planning, suddenly 

announced about 12 days ago that the Anadarko Area Office would be consolidated with the 

Muskogee Area Office and the combined office moved to either Oklahoma City or Tulsa. 

Frankly, we were appalled that such a hasty, drastic move would be taken with little if any input 

from the tribes. 

I have always advocated the streamlining of BIA. However, any streamlining should be 

carefully planned, equitable, and involve meaningful participation of affected tribes. 

Restructuring should occur across the board at all administrative levels of BIA, including the 

Central Office. What has happened here in Oklahoma was a rash, virtually unplanned act of 

budget slashing. We ask that this Subcommittee inquire into the Department's decision to 

combine the two area offices and determine whether any consideration was given to the 

Department's ability to discharge its trust responsibility to Oklahoma tribes and individual 

Indians. 

Once again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and for its 

decision to come here to Cherokee Nation to conduct this hearing. 

5 
15 

ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY OF WILI\IA P. MANKILLER, 

PRI;o.;CIPAL CHIEF OF CHEROKEE NATION, 

BEFORE HOUSE SUBCOMJ\.HTIEE ON NATIVE MIERICAN AFFAIRS 

.JANUARY 20. 199-4 

In addition to the Se lf-Governance issues raised in my oral testimony , I would like to 

bring a few important legislative initiatives to the Subcommittee's attention relating to economic 

development. The Self-Governance is only one side of the coin of Indian sovereignty; the other 

is tribal economic self-sufficiency, the achievement of which will require substantial support 

from Congress. We ask that the Subcommittee consider the following recommendations. 

I. EXTENSION OF OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTME;o.;T COVERAGE TO 

INVESTMENTS~ I:'I:DIA:'\ COVl'TRY. 

The Subcommittee may recall that in 1992 , S. 2746 was introduced into the Senate. This 

bill would have extended the jurisdiction of OPIC and the benefi ts of OPIC's programs, which 

include grants, loans and poli tical risk insu rance , to private in vestments in tribal businesses anct 

enterprises. We feel that the extension of OPIC jurisdiction and programs to Indian country is 

consistent with the organization's primary mission of fostering development, as well as its 

secondary goals of improving U.S. competitiveness, stimulating trade, and creating American 

jobs. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that you do not have to travel to South America to find the 

depressed economic conditions of Third World countries. The same conditions can be found in 

most Indian areas, communities and reservations right here in the U.S.A. 

Tribes such as the Cherokee Nation have actively sought private investment in the past. 

Investors, however, often are hesitant to make financial commitments due to the complicated 

trust status of Indian lands, the lack of infrastructure in Tribal areas, and the unfamiliar political 

organization of Indian and Native communities. Extending OP!C programs to private 

investments in Indian areas would help overcome investors' fears and stimulate desperately 

needed economic development. 

II. INDIAN TRffiAL BOND ISSUANCE REFORM 

The Securities Act of 1933, as amended , requires that all securities which are publicly 

offered be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission unless there is an applicable 

exemption. There is no exemption for securities of Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, the bond 

issues of Indian tribal governments have relied on one of two exemptions-either the securities 

have been sold on a private placement basis to institutional investors (as was done with the 

Cherokee Nation bonds) or they have been secured by a letter of credit from a financial 

institution (as was done by the Warm Springs Tribe of Oregon). 

The need for Indian Tribal Governments to rely upon the private placement or the letterof-credit exemptions results in a smaller market of investors as well as considerably higher cost 

of capital than if the securities could be publicly offered . Furthermore, the securities issued by 
16 

states, political subdivisions of states, and public instrumentalities are expressly exempt from 

registration under the 1933 Act. 

We feel that the appropriat~ amendments to the 193~ .-\ct placing the securities of Indian 

Tribal governments on the same playing tield as the securities of other governments would 

correct an inequity and enhance the competitiveness of tribal governments in capital markets. 

III. BUY-INDIAN ACT/ML"'ORITY Bl'SINESS PERFORMANCE BONDING 

Presently, only BIA and IHS are authorized to give preference to Indian-owned 

businesses under the Buy-Indian Act of 1910. Congress voted to amend the Act in 1988 to 

include all federal expenditures within Indian Country. However, the amendment was pocket 

vetoed by the President and though later reintroduced, no action was taken. 

We recommend that the Subcommi~~ee consider introducing legislation similar to the 1988 

Buy-Indian Act amendments. However. we suggest that the "bond guarantee" programs of the 

1988 amendments for small contractors be reviewed carefully to ensure that it gives meaningful 

assistance to qualitied contractors who are unable to secure bonding elsewhere. 

IV. MORTGAGE REVE11.1JE BO:\'DS 

Under current law, Indian housing authorities may issue mortgage revenue bonds only 

if they do so in accordance with state law and persuade the state to share its bond authority. 

Such sharing is unlikely, given the number of constituents that compete for this prize. In the 

past, we have urged Congress to change the law to grant the authority for Indian housing 

authorities to issue mortgage revenue bonds independent of state law. No legislative action has 

been taken on this consideration. 

Because of the special needs of housing in Indian Country, Congress should reconsider 

enhancing the mortgage bond capacity of Tribal and Indian housing authorities. If issuance 

authority independent of state law is unacceptable, a less favorable but nevertheless beneficial 

step would be an allowance for states to increase their bond capacity with a portion of that 

increase to be dedicated to Indian housing needs. 

V. TOURISM 

On August 4, 1993, Cherokee Nation staff offered testimony in a Joint Hearing before 

the Subcommittee of Aviation and the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation in support of 

H.Con.Res 110, calling for the President to convene a White House Conference on Tourism. 

The Cherokee Nation sees tourism as a viable growth industry for Indian economics. Obviously 

many of the state and local tourism initiatives agree because of the emphasis placed on 

promoting Indians or Indian events as tourist attractions. This is especially true in 

Oklahoma-which is an irony to many Indian people, who fail to realize any benefit from a 

substantial portion of these Indian promotions. 

2 
17 

Even with this interest in American Indians, tribes are overlooked as potential partners 

in tourism. A notice of proposed rule-making was issued by the United States Travel and 

Tourism Administration in Volume 58 Number 13, Friday. January 22, 1993, of the Federal 

Register. In the proposed rules. the Travel and Tourism Administration proposed a matching 

grant program for international tourism trade development. Eligible applicants were "programs 

which shall at a minimum involve the participation of two or more States; one or more States 

and one or more political subdivisions of the States; or one or more States and one or more 

nonprofit organizations," plus other programmatic qualifiers. Indian tribal governments were 

not specifically identified as eligible applicants. As we have discovered, unless tribes are 

specifically identified, they often are presumed to be excluded from program eligibility. 

3 
18 

Mr. SYNAR. Bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL ANOATUBBY 

Mr. ANoATUBBY. Good morning, Mr. Congressman. We certainly 

appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Obviously you have 

the written testimony, we appreciate you entering that into the 

record. 

Mr. SYNAR. Bill, pull that microphone a little bit closer. Can you 

hear him in the back? There you go. 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. We certainly share many of the same concerns 

that Chief Mankiller does. 

As far as self-governance is concerned, we are also a tribe that 

is participating in self-governance with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We believe that that office should certainly be given the attention that it needs at the Washington level. We have had a little 

difficulty in getting funding to Chickasaw Nation. We believe that 

they are under-staffed. And I do not mean that we need to add a 

bunch of other folks over there, I think there needs to be some 

sharing of resources within the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assist 

this office. 

In addition, Indian Health Service is setting up an Office of SelfGovernance and again, this could be duplicative. I believe the National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution which 

would ask the federal government to set up one office of self-governance. I am not sure about the other leaders, how they feel about 

this, but I personally believe that could be more efficient as long 

as they get the support from Congress and from the administration 

that is required for it to function properly. It would be much more 

efficient. 

And in addition, relating to self-governance, we have a government-to-government relationship with the federal government. And 

as far as that is concerned, I believe that all agencies of the federal 

government who have programs which are intended to benefit the 

Indian population, that those programs should also be included in 

the self-governance program or the self-governance effort. 

I know that there are some moves already being made in addition to Indian Health, some in the Department of Labor and other 

agencies, to consider this concept. But it is one that can make the 

future of Indian tribes and its people and the services that are provided to its people much more efficient and will meet the needs of 

its people much better than any large government such as the federal government could do. It brings the decision-making down to 

the local level and it also allows the elected officials of an Indian 

tribe to be accountable to its constituency, much more accountable. 

And we are able to provide the programs much better. 

Other issues, of course gaming, we believe that Congress in its 

consideration of the amendments to the Gaming Act, we ask that 

our representatives and those people who are most interested in 

dealing with the needs of Indian people, give it special attention 

and protect what we have. I know there has been an effort across 

this country to diminish the ability of Indian tribes to function 

within the gaming arena and mostly it is coming from other governments and those who maybe feel like they should have jurisdiction over these things. As far as the Chickasaw Nation is con-
19 

cerned, we derive considerable income from our gaming operations 

and it provides many programs that we could not offer otherwise 

if that income was not there. So we need the protection of Congress 

on this issue. 

Education, housing-you know, we always have to ask for housing. We appreciate Congress including housing in the budget this 

last year and we hope that that will continue in future years. We 

echo the words of Chief Mankiller that Indian Health Service needs 

to be given appropriate funding, but with this new health reform 

that is being considered in Congress right now, we need to protect 

Indian Health Service and the special relationship that we have, 

Indian tribes and the United States government, and it is also an 

opportunity for Indian Health to be better funded so that it can 

serve the needs of our people. 

Thank you very much for being here. Thanks for the opportunity 

to say a few words to you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Anoatubby follows:] 
20 

'Thstimony of 

Bill Anoatubby, Governor of the Chickasaw Nation 

Before the House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

January 20, 1994 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

Mr. Chairman, on behalfofthe people of the unconquered and unconquerable 

Chickasaw Nation, we bid you and the members of the House Subcommittee on Native 

American Affairs welcome to Oklahoma, the state with the largest concentration of 

Native Americans. 

My name is Bill Anoatubby, and I am the governor of the Chickasaw Nation. One 

of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Chickasaw Nation encompasses more than 7,648 

square miles of south central Oklahoma. The Chickasaw Nation is unique among the 

relocated tribes of America in that we did not trade our homelands for new lands in the 

West; we purchased our lands from the Choctaw Nation. Our tribal population places 

us as the 13th largest Indian tribe in the United States, according to the 1990 Census. 

We are pleased that the House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs has 

enabled us to bring our concerns to you directly. There are many issues facing Indian 

tribes today and we are struggling to deal with them all. In order that the primary 

concerns of the Chickasaw Nation might be presented to you in an easy-to-understand 

format, this testimony is divided into sections, by federal agency of concern and not 

necessarily by importance. Following the agency headings are some areas of general 

concern which might not directly apply to specific federal agencies. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Area Office Consolidation 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has long been a friend to the Chickasaw Nation. 

We have enjoyed a most cooperative working relationship with the BIAon both an areaand agency-level. The high degree of sensitivity displayed by the Muskogee Area Office 

in dealing with the Five Civilized Tribes is a testimony to the emphasis which this 
21 

federal agency has placed on the policies devised and enacted by Congress. 

Historically, the Five Civilized Tribes have been shown great deference by the 

Congress and by the United States Government. We have been dealt with separately 

on many issues of importance, including the methods used to administer trust and 

restricted property belonging to our citizens in eastern Oklahoma. Numerous federal 

laws have been adopted by Congress which deal directly and strictly with the Five 

Civilized Tribes. Our various tribal relationships with the United States have been, 

at times, strained; however, the Chickasaw Nation was one of the very first tribes to 

sign treaties of peace with the United States. We were allies of the United States in the 

fight for American independence. Our warriors fought alongside the men of General 

George Washington, often making war against other Indian tribes who had sided with 

the British. We put the lives of our young men in jeopardy because we were fighting 

for the ideals espoused by the fathers who were hoping to build a new country. We, too, 

believed in those ideals and we worked alongside our friends in the fight for independence. 

Our efforts, our friendship and our sacrifices were rewarded with the forced 

eviction and removal of our ancestors from their homelands. This, we also accepted and 

eventually we founded our new nation here in Indian Territory. We overcame the 

hardships which were presented to us. We accepted the challenges which we found in 

our paths. We made new friends and we worked hard to establish our own new 

government. The government founded by our ancestors relied heavily-- as we continue 

to do today-- on the special government-to-government relationship that our two 

mighty nations have enjoyed for so long. 

Today, we are informed that the federal government is planning to consolidate 

the Muskogee Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with the Anadarko Area 

Office. Before such action is taken, it is imperative that arduous and careful 

consideration be given to the special relationship which has developed between the 

Five Civilized Tribes and the United States. Congress has recognized this relationship 

2 
22 

time and time again. The Five Civilized Tribes have historically been dealt with 

separately from other tribes because of their unique qualities and the requirements of 

that relationship. It is the responsibility of the United States, through treaties and by 

law, to act as and to serve as our trustee to the very best of the federal government's 

ability. And, while we respect the needs of the federal government for streamlining and 

elimination of waste, we nevertheless expect the federal government to respect its 

commitment to the Five Civilized Tribes in the making of such decisions which have the 

potential for long-term impact upon our people. 

The decision to consolidate the two area offices was one which was made without 

consultation with the leaders of the tribal governments. It is a decision which is 

deserving of more study. It is a decision in which we must take part. 

The needs-- even the legal requirements-- of the tribes located in the eastern part 

of Oklahoma are different from the needs and legal requirements of the tribes in 

western Oklahoma. Attempting to consolidate the services of both area offices will 

result in confusion and, we fear, loss of the same high quality of representation we have 

come to know and expect from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The trust responsibility 

alone which is owed to the various tribes in Oklahoma must be given adequate 

consideration in making such a decision. 

Should the government find legal basis to carry out its plan for consolidation of 

the two area offices, and regardless of the final decision which is made, we urge every 

consideration be given in arriving at the location of such a combined area office. 

Locating that office in Oklahoma City is, in our opinion, not the best solution. 

Oklahoma City was part of what was known as "Unassigned Lands." It was never a part 

of Indian Country and, consequently, it should not be considered as the site for a 

combined BIA area office. We suggest and highly recommend that Tulsa be the site for 

such an office. Tulsa is located inside Indian Country. It has a history which is rich 

in Indian culture. It has the conveniences and the services which can only be offered 

by a larger metropolitan area. Tulsa is, in our opinion, by far more preferable than 

3 
Oklahoma City. 

Self-Governance 

23 

The Chickasaw Nation is fortunate to be one of the tribes selected to participate 

in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' self-governance program. In that process, we have 

found the Bureau oflndian Affairs to be most cooperative in providing assistance. Our 

experiences to date indicate that the BIA has taken self-governance seriously and that 

the commitment of the BIA to the program is without equal among other federal 

agencies. 

We strongly support the BIA's efforts in self-governance; however, it is easy to 

see that the current staffing of the BIA is causing problems in processing and 

negotiating compacts with the various tribal governments involved in self-governance. 

Adequate staffing must be provided to the BIA in order that it may successfully 

complete this long-range effort. 

Self-governance finally affords the tribal governments the ability, the opportunity and the authority to truly provide for their respective citizens by meeting the 

specific needs of the various tribal governments' constituencies. We commend the BIA 

for working so hard to make self-governance the reality that it has become. 

lpdian Health Service 

Self-Governance 

The Indian Health Service is also embarking upon the road to self-governance. 

The Chickasaw Nation is only beginning the process with the Indian Health Service; 

however, the IHS approach to self-governance is far different from that taken by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Beginning with the implementation of the Public Law 93-638, the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act, the IHS has set its own path, and that 

path has been one that is far different from other federal agencies. In self-governance, 

it appears that the Indian Health Service is again clearing a path through its own 

4 
24 

internal bureaucratic jungle. 

Although we are just beginning self-governance with the Indian Health Service, 

we have already experienced an attitude which is not truly conducive to the free 

exercise of tribal governmental powers and authorities under self-governance programs. This lack of freedom is due, in part, to the hierarchical and somewhat 

convoluted machinations utilized by the Indian Health Service in arriving at its 

managerial determinations. Despite these internal problems in dealing with the IHS, 

we continue in our efforts. 

As with the BIA, we believe that the Indian Health Service could better serve its 

functions under self-governance if it were made a permanent program. One of the main 

problems is the lack of staffing to adequately carry out the functions and responsibilities under self-governance. The IHS approach has been to add staff to care for selfgovernance and thus they have created an entirely new tier within their own 

bureaucracy. This method appears to be unwieldy and should perhaps be re-examined. 

Medical Staffing Concerns 

There is a special relationship between tribal governments and the federal 

government in the provision of medical/health care to the Indian people. This 

relationship exists not just because of treaties between the various tribes and the 

United States, but because it is a method whereby nations are dealing with nations on 

a government-to-government basis. Through the years since its advent in 1955, the 

Indian Health Service has become the primary health care provider and is relied upon, 

in some cases exclusively, by the Indian people. 

There is a hospital located inside the Chickasaw Nation which, when it was fully 

staffed, had 20 physicians. It now has only five physicians on staff, yet the patient load 

has increased dramatically. The Indian Health Service has responded to the need for 

clinical physicians at the facility by engaging the services of flow-through contract 

physicians, some of whom are only at the hospital for five days. This provides 

inconsistent health care and is extremely costly. 

5 
25 

We are concerned that the Indian Health Service is not placing sufficient 

emphasis on the recruitment of physicians or on the retention of those physicians which 

are already employed by the IHS. The quality of overall health care provided through 

the Indian Health Service for the Indian people has deteriorated and, in these times of 

national concern over health care for all Americans, the single most important agency 

in the provision ofhealth care in Indian Country is simply not meeting the needs of the 

Indian community. The Indian Health Service should be encouraging the recruitment 

of capable physicians so that its facilities might be fully staffed and operated with the 

utmost efficiency and care for patients. 

Health Care Reform 

The reform of the health care industry in the United States is an important issue. 

The Indian Health Service has long been providing rationed health care to the Indian 

people and we must make certain that the services already being provided by the IHS 

is not eliminated, reduced or restricted. 

Although there are now more than a dozen proposed plans to institute major 

health care reforms in the nation, Indian tribes must concern themselves with ensuring 

that the services provided by the Indian Health Service are maintained and provided 

in addition to any other services which will be mandated by federal health care reform. 

The services called for in President Bill Clinton's Health Care Reform Act do take into 

consideration the services already provided by the Indian Health Service; however, the 

minimum health care package being proposed is more than is available or is being 

provided by the IHS. Indian people deserve no less than other Americans when it comes 

to adequate health care. Funding for the Indian Health Service must be increased in 

order that Native Americans receive the same type and level of health care services as 

will all other Americans. 

Indian Health Service Funding in Oklahoma 

The Oklahoma City Area of the Indian Health Service provides services to the 

largest single concentration oflndian people. In fact, 23% of the users ofiHS facilities 

6 
26 

reside inside Oklahoma. Yet, when it comes to funding provided to the various IHS area 

offices for operations and services, the Oklahoma City Area receives only about 13% of 

the IHS funds allocated for the areas operated by the Indian Health Service. On a per 

capita basis, the Oklahoma City Area is the lowest-funded area in the entire Indian 

Health Service. 

It is not logical or reasonable that medical/health services which are provided 

through IHS facilities in other areas are not available in Oklahoma because of a lack 

of sufficient funding. 

Economic Development 

Indian tribes are striving to attain economic self-sufficiency through the development of their individual tribal economies. Such efforts have been repeatedly 

encouraged by the Congress and by the various agencies of the federal govemment. The 

tribes have eagerly accepted the challenge through their entry into the world of 

business, yet there seem to be few incentives offered by the federal govemment to 

encourage the development of true tribal economies. 

Those incentives could be accomplished through the federal govemment's 

further encouragement of economic development in Indian Country throughout the 

United States. Tax benefits and other incentives are helpful, but such incentives do 

little good if companies and businesses are not encouraged to take advantage of the 

added benefits of doing business in Indian Country. 

Terminology in Federal Legjslatioo 

Through the years, tribal govemments in Oklahoma have been overlooked or 

omitted from legislation coming from the Congress due to the use of the term, 

"reservation," when defining applicability of programs or funding. With few exceptions, there are no reservations in Oklahoma, yet there is indeed "Indian Country" in 

the state, and parcels of land which qualify under the federal definitions of Indian 

7 
27 

Country abound in almost every county. 

Because the tribes in Oklahoma are struggling just as hard, if not harder, than 

tribes which are located on true reservations, they ll).ust be included in federal 

legislation which address problems and solutions in Indian Country. We suggest the 

more readily applied term, "Indian Country" be used in language contained in federal 

legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to be able to meet with you and to present 

this testimony before the Subcommittee. We appreciate your coming to Oklahoma and 

listen to us. We look forward to workingwithyou and the members of the Subcommittee 

on these and other issues of importance in the years to come. 

8 
28 

Mr. SYNAR. Larry, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY NUCKOLLS 

Mr. NUCKOLLS. Thank you. First, I would like to thank this Committee for allowing me to testify and your efforts, Congressman 

Synar and. Chief Mankiller for giving us the opportunity for you to 

come to Oklahoma. 

There are some issues that I would like to be able to discuss with 

this Committee today. We have been a tier one tribe since 1990. 

This is one of the first agreements that my tribe as a government 

had entered into in any type of agreement with the United States 

since 1890 and the treaty of 1860. We felt that it was going to be 

another good government relationship, government-to-government, 

our government with the United States. 

I would like to comment on some problems that we have experienced and some recommendation. I personally negotiated the BIA 

compact and this past year, in 1993, I personally negotiated the 

IHS compact. I think there are some problems in the areas when 

you negotiate a compact with the Indian Health Service and they 

have established their own office of self-governance. That is not 

fair, it is not equitable and it definitely is not honorable. When you 

have to negotiate with an agency of the federal government, vying 

for their dollars as they vie for the dollars out of Congress. My biggest concern in that area-at least with the Bureau of Indian Mfairs, we had an office of self-governance that we felt like was reliable with integrity where they would be able to move forward with 

us and assist us as an advocate. IHS, we have not found that to 

be the case. 

A fine example of shortfall funding I think that this Committee 

and Congress needs to look at, historically BIA has utilized the 

shortfall funding to fund the tribes rather than using programmic 

monies and administrative dollars. The classic example-! would 

like to be able to comment on thi8-Qur annual funding agreement 

this year has been shortfalled in the decrease by some $170,000 

where the Bureau of Indian Affairs, their stable funding has not 

been decreased. So in one hand, we do have a government-to-government relationship. On the other hand, when you are dealing 

with the bureaucracies and the agencies of the federal government, 

you end up sometimes losing. We historically have gone in after the 

hard dollars, programmic dollars, administrative dollars, but this 

year in the 1994 annual funding agreement, we are taking a decrease. Those are some of things that we are running into. 

And the Absentee-Shawnee, we do support permanent legislation 

for self-governance. What little that we have been able to participate in the major line items we have had, made a difference to this 

date in that we have been able to serve more people in education, 

our tribal courts have been able to expand, our police department 

has been able to expand. 

The stable funding that four tribes from the northwest has requested and received for 1993, we are asking this Committee for 

that support. We are seeking now our stable funding base. 

The recommendations I think that our tribe would have since we 

have been in it since the inception, since 1990, would be that Congress take a real hard look on how the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
29 

funds the shortfall of the self-governance tribes. I cannot reiterate 

enough that rather than using shortfall to offset the expenses of 

the administration of the federal agency, they are using the shortfall money to finish up our annual funding agreements, and it is 

really terrible in that they are not streamlining, they are not doing 

anything over there, at least on the Bureau side, to modify their 

administrative costs. 

Our tribe has felt the wrath of it in this year's funding agreement. We are a small tribe, we feel like it is a government-to-government relationship. Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are agencies of the federal government, they are not 

the federal government, they are not the United States of America-they are an agent. They do have trust responsibilities but at 

the same time, our agreements ru:e not with BIA and IHS, it is 

with the United States. 

To sum up, we have presented written testimony for the record. 

A summation here is that we are requesting support from this 

Committee to the Appropriations Committee on stable funding. 

And again, I do appreciate being allowed to come forth on behalf 

of my tribe to testify. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Nuckolls follows:] 

86·834 95-2 
30 

TESTIMONY BEFORE BOUSE SUBCOMMDTEE 

ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

.JANUARY 20. 1994 

Talalaquala, Oklahoma 

{'oou.oca 

L BUREAU OF INDIAN AFF MRS AND 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVI{'ES liAS 

CONTINUED NOT TO ADHERE TO 

·ACTS MANDATED BY CONGRESS. 

D. STABLE FUNDING • THE TRIBE BAS 

IDENTD'IED NEEDS FOR STABLE 

FUNDING, BOTH PROGRAMMATI{', 

INDIRECT COST AND SBORTF ALL. 

Larry NaekoU. 

Gewernor 

Ableniee Sha-ee Tribe 

el Oklahoma 

202~ S. Gord- t:-per Drive 

Sha-ee. OK 7 4801 

(40~· 27 ~-4030 
Congressman Bill Richardson 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Native 

American Affairs 

1522 Longworth H.O.B. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

31 

My name is Larry Nuckolls and I am the Governor of the Absentee 

Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. At this time I would like to thank this 

Honorable Committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma. I will be giving 

testimony to this Committee today on our efforts and our attempts 

as a sovereign for self determination through the Demonstration 

Project of Self Governance. I feel with the experience that we 

have gained through our efforts to succeed in this project can 

assist other Tribal Governments to be successful in the future. 

First I would like to tell this committee something about the 

Shawnee. The history of our Tribe has been a long journey that 

started in the Ohio area in the 1700's to today's location in 

Oklahoma. Even though our existence began with what we Shawnee call 

the Creator, we feel that as a Sovereign Nation from time to time 

we must evaluate our position and then seek resolution for the 

benefit of our people. Through compacts and agreements with the 

United States it strengthens our position as a Sovereign Nation and 

again as a true government. 

As the Governor of our Tribe I was the first of our modern day 

leaders to enter into a compact with the United States, the first 

such agreement since 1890 and the Treaty of 1860. It was in 1990 

that I signed this Compact and to this day, I believe that it was 

then the beginning of a new relationship between the United States 

and the Absentee Shawnee Tribe. 

This Compact that we as a Sovereign participated in allowed our 

Tribal Government to begin to take our rightful place with other 

Sovereigns within these United States. This Compact was a first in 

over 100 years that allowed our Government to implement much needed 

programs that we determined were needed for our people rather than 

the federal government. With this Compact and the savings of 

Tribal resources in the beginning years of the Compact we were able 

to serve more people than the Bureau of Indian Affairs had in the 

past. 
32 

As we experienced a period of sovereignty with the added resources 

through self governance, we also experienced federal agencies that 

were hostile to change. These agencies of the federal government 

have in my opinion completely ignored the Acts of Congress. Our 

Government has moved steadily forward regardless of these acts of 

hostility and the shortfall of funding even in the face of 

adversity with these agencies that represent the United States. We 

have continued to use our resources and offset the shortfall of 

funding in an effort to insure our own self determination and 

through self governance. 

The Government of the Shawnee believe that these Compacts that we 

have entered into are with the United States and not with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service. These 

agencies of the federal government are not governments of their own 

making, but are merely agents that carry out the trust 

responsibilities of the United States. We have consistently 

identified needs for more resources than the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs has agreed to in our annual funding agreements. 

We have over a four year period identified numerous shortfalls in 

the area of housing, education, police protection, courts, health 

care, social services and human resources. We have repeatedly been 

denied our fair share of funding sources by the Bureau and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to ignore Congressional Acts to 

streamline and reduce their adminstration. The Bureau it appears 

has in the opinion of this Governor made every effort to insure 

that this demonstration project will fail. 

The Absentee Shawnee has also entered into a Compact with the 

Indian Health Service for 1994. I negotiated this Compact as well 

as the first Bureau of Indian Affairs Compact for our Tribe. The 

problems that we experience with the Bureau of Indian Affairs are 

now the same as with the Indian Health Service except for what I 

consider one major issue. My concern is, the Indian Health Service 

operates their own office of self governance. It is and still is a serious question of fair and honorable negotiations even among 

honorable participants. When the Bureau of Indians Affairs first 

started the process we had what I consider at least an impartial 

self governance office to negotiate with my tribe, unlike the 

negotiations with Indian Health Service. It is my belief after 

negotiating with both agencies of the federal government that their 

intention may on the face be well intended, but the difficulty that 

we self governance Tribes experience is by no means of the 

imagination fair and equitable. 

2 
33 

We would recommend to Congress and this Committee to take the 

appropriate steps in not allowing these agencies of the federal 

Government to use shortfall funding in our annual funding 

agreements, instead use Program Funds and Administrative dollars to 

fulfill annual funding agreements for self governance Tribes. The 

agencies should use these funds for their shortfall when they 

streamline and reduce their adminstration . The classic example of 

short fall funding is our Tribe's FY-94 Funding Agreement where we 

were reduced in excess of $170,000.00. At the same time the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs has increased their stable funding, while we as 

a sovereign with a Compact have taken a decrease . 

The Tribe's overall economic and social standing has altered little 

in the previous four years of compacting. We are cognizant that no 

single program or activity can adequately address all situations 

faced by o ur membership, however, by continuing to utilize Tribal 

resources plus a carefully planned and organized approach to ou r 

locally established needs will result in success for our 

membership. 

The intent of Congress and the Clinton Administration for reinventing Government has gone on deaf ears. On October 26, 1993 the 

President signed Executive Order 12875 that allows for waivers to 

l ocal,State and Tribal governments to encourage a better government 

to government relationship. Even with a Presidential Executive 

Order and Acts of Congress we continue to have difficulties in 

obtaining waivers with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian 

Health Service. Without the approval of waivers we cannot 

effectfully attain what the President and Congress intended se lf 

governance to be. 

Our Tribe throughout the years has relied upon the federal 

government's assistance and resources for our self determination. 

Through self governance and Tribal initiative ' s our Government has 

developed an infrastructure of Government to insure economic 

stability. We have created a political sub division by a 

l e gislative Act and developed a Tribal Development Authority. This 

body politic's goal is to develop economic enterprises that 

stimulates Tribal employment. Upon reveiw of the 150 employee ' s of 

our government and including all Tribal enterprises we found that 

our employee's annual wages were 60 per cent below the 1990 census 

report for the average family income . Our beleif is if we can 

attain economic stability we become less reliant on the federal 

Government. We have applied for waivers for this body politic and 

as this date we have receive no reply. If waivers are granted to 

this Tribe we can then begin to raise the quality of life for our 

members through our efforts in economic development. 

3 
34 

After reviewing our efforts in the demonstration project and the 

difficulties that we as a sovereign experienced with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. We feel that stable funding is the only avenue this 

sovereign has to enable for our Government to improve the overall 

economic conditions and the general welfare of our people. 

We ask this Honorable Committee for support on behalf of this 

sovereigns request for stable funding to the House Sub Committee 

for Interior appropriations. If we are successful we will be the 

fifth Tier one (1) Tribe to receive stable funding. Our Tribe has 

determined that the funding level that we request is based on what we could have received in the negotiation process with the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs and on our unmet needs that has lacked adequate 

funding through the years. This funding request is for $2.6 million 

which includes Indirect Cost. 

With our request for stable funding and with the support of this 

Committee, this sovereign can began to take its rightful place with 

other Governments. It will allow our Tribe to began to properly 

plan a future without the negotiation process with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs annually for our people. This will allow us to 

utilize needed Tribal resources to establish economic stability and 

rely less on the federal agencies of the United States. The stable 

funding will finally allow us to determined our future as a sovereign Government. 
~ R£Pl \" REfER TO 

35 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

ANADARKO AREA OFFICE 

P.O . BOX 368 

ANADARKO, OKLAHOMA 73005 

Larry Nuckolls, Governor 

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

2025 S. Gordon Cooper 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801 

Dear Governor Nuckolls: 

The Absentee Shawnee Tribes Higher Education Scholarships base 

funding amount for self governance purposes, as explained in my 

November 3, 1993 memorandum, is $42,545. 

At the time the Absentee Shawnee (resolution AS-88-66); Citizen 

Band Potawatomi (resolution Pott-88-72); Iowa (resolution I-88-48); 

Kickapoo (resolution K-88-27); and Sac and Fox (resolution SF-88-

100) ; Tribes decided to contract their portions of Shawnee Agency 

programs the Tribes met, developed and unanimously agreed to the 

formula that was utilized to divide the Agency resources for P.L. 

93-638 contracting purposes. The resulting percentage share of 

programs by Tribe in accordance with that agreed upon formula was 

Absentee Shawnee 21.3%; Citizens Band Potawatomi 31.7%; Iowa 7.4%; 

Kickapoo 17.5%; and Sac and Fox 22.1%. 

The FY 1990 Shawnee Agency Higher Education Scholarships funding 

that was divided among the contracting Tribes in accordance with 

the agreed upon formula was $180,300. 

The Absentee Shawnee Tribes 21.3% resulted in an FY 1990 allocation 

of $38,400. 

A Congressionally mandated .52% general reduction resulted in an FY 

1991 allocation of $38,200. 

For FY 1992, the FY 1991 general reduction ($200) was restored, a 

9.2546% general i ncrease ($3,600) and 638 pay cost ($545! were 

added which established the $4 2,545 Scholarship program base for 

self governance purposes. 

The assertion that the Shawnee Agency and the Area Office in 1990 

unilaterally moved Absentee Shawnee Higher Education Scholarships 

funds in the amount of $39 ,369 and Adult Education funds in the 

amount of $5,503 to the Sac and Fox Aid To Tribal Government line 

item is not true. 

The Oklahoma Area Education Office and the Central Office Education 
36 

Office were contacted and requested to provide this office with 

documented evidence to support the above alleqation. 

The Central Office Education representative denied providinq such 

information to the Oklahoma Area Education Office. The Oklahoma 

Area Education Proqram Administrator could find no evidence where 

Absentee Shawnee Scholarships nor Adult Education funds were moved 

to the sac and Fox Aid To Tribal Government proqram. The Education 

Proqram Administrator did find documented evidence that in June 

1990 the Shawnee Aqency, at the request of the Sac and Fox Nation, 

reproqrammed the Sac and Pox Nations shares of Scholarships and 

Adult Education funds to the Sac and Fox Nation Aid To Tribal 

Government proqram for inclusion in a CTGP contract. 

The Oklahoma Education Proqram Administrator has assured me that 

his office will clarify to you the error or misunderstandinq which 

occurred durinq the dialoque between his staff and your self 

qovernance staff. 

I support your Tribes efforts to achieve the qoal of self 

qovernance. As I have expressed to all parties durinq preneqotiations and neqotiations I am equally responsible to all 

twenty-four (24) Tribes within the Anadarko Area and therefore have 

determined each Tribe, reqardless of size, (population or otherwise) would receive an equal share of Area Office funds. My 

support is further evidenced by the fact I have opted not to 

establish a residual amount for trust service functions assumed by the Area Office under self qovernance, as to do so would have 

reduced the amount of funds available to self qovernance compact Tribes, thereby reducinq their chances for success. 

Contrary to your memorandum. the compact Tribes have been provided 

complete and accurate financial data. No information has been 

withheld during the negotiation process. as I have said on several 

occasions. tbere is nothing to hide. 

Sinc:_erely~ /1 

<- "'-: CtsJ: L~'•·-4£J 

Area Director 
37 

!Jturrltt "qafuntt mrihe of ®klaly01ttll ZDZS fj. llorhon Gloopn 

/j~a&ntn, <llltla~D11Ul 74801 

(405) Z75-4030 ~!-X: Z75-5637 

November 2, 1993 

L.W . Collier, Area Director 

Anadarko Area Office Bureau of .Indian Affairs 

P.O. Box 368 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Dear Mr. Collier: 

etfitr at 11J< 

4Jollmlor 

larrp j!uciolls 

As a result of our telephone conversation of November 1, this 

office assigned our Tribal Office of Self Governance staff to 

pursue the issue of our conflicting Higher Education Scholarship 

allocation. 

The Office of Indian Education was contacted and Mr. Ron Ellis 

was unable to shed any light on the discrepancy, however, Mr. Ellis 

agreed to contact Mr. Joe Herrin [(202) 208-7658], of the Central 

Office concerning the matter. 

At approximately 9:15a.m., Mr. Ellis contacted the Tribe and 

provided the following information pursuant to the issue. 

According to Mr. Ellis and Mr . Herrin, in 1990, the Shawnee 

Agency unilaterally moved Absentee Shawnee Higher Education 

Scholarship funds in the amount of $39,369.00 to the Sac and Fox 

"Aid To Tribal Government" line item, and further moved Absentee 

Shawnee Adult Education funds in the amount of $5,503.00 to the Sac 

and Fox "Aid To Tribal Government" line item. 

A search of our records reveals no Bureau notification of this 

movement of funds to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe, nor does there 

appear any form of consent by the Tribe to authorize the reprogramming of those funds. 

Mr. Ellis and Mr. Herrin continue their information by 

indicating that, in 1991, the Shawnee Agency moved the swn of 

$38,200 to the Absentee Shawnee Higher Education Scholarship line item. 

From 1992 through 1994, Higher Education Scholarships line 

items are 11 0", with the explanation that all such funds are 

contained within the "Self Governance" line item as a single consolidated sum. 

The Office of Indian Education reportedly contacted the 
38 

Absentee Shawnee Tribe in late December, 1992 or early January, 

1993, and requested to be informed of the dollar amount. allocated 

by the Tribe, under Self Governance, to Higher Education 

Scholarships and was correctly informed that the amount was 

$117,000.00, ~. it was not stated that the sum of $100,000 . 00 

of this overall total was tribally generated funds and not direct 

Self Governance funds from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Based on 

this inadvertent error in semantics, the Office of Indian Education 

subsequently used the figure to develop its financial information. 

This . office's point of contention centers at the unilateral 

action of the Shawnee Agency in 1990, our first year of Self 

Governance Compacting, which clearly shows the actual degree of 

"commitment 11 to Self Governance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, at 

least at the Shawnee Agency and Anadarko Area Office levels. 

The sum whi c h was re-allocated to our neighboring Sac and Fox 

Nation, $44, 863. DO, does not appear to be an appreciable sum , 

however, when viewed against our 1994 Higher Education Scholarshi p 

award of-$42,545.00, it represents a funding increase of 105%; and 

when viewed against the backdrop of the number of years since 1990 , 

represents nearly $180,000.00. 

one of the highest priorities of the Absentee is the provision 

of Higher Education oppo~tunity, and in 1993, the Absentee Shawnee 

Tribe will expend in excess of $250, ooo. oo of its own tribally 

generated funds to provide Higher Education Scholarship grants to 

eligible Indian students. Had the Tribe had access to the near 

$180,000.00 referenced above , a large portion of these tribal funds 

may have been utilized in another need area of the Tribe . 

Since our entry into Self Governance, we, as have other Self 

Governance Tribes, have complained regarding the overt and covert 

actions of Area and Agency offices in failing to completely 

disclose accurate and complete financial data. Without such 

accurate and complete financial data, Self Governance Tribes cannot 

and will not achieve the goals of Self Governance, of Congressional 

intent, nor of the letter of the law. 

It is the position of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

that actions of the Agency and Area, such as that taken in 1990, 

must cease. The statute requires that good faith negotiations 

occur by and between the United States and the several Indian 

Tribes and Nations when the authorities of Title III of P.L. 93-

638, as amended, are e x ercised by tribal governments, yet there 

regularly occurs these revelations concerning the lack of good 

faith by agents of the Federal government and line officials of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

During our annual negotiations, the Shawnee Agency and 

Anadarko Area Office constantly contend that our Self Governance 

activities will "adversely impact" other Indian Tribes and Nations 

served by those agencies, yet apparently no such concern exists 

when BIA actions adversely impacts this Tribe . 
39 

The Absentee Shawnee Tribe believes it is entitled to the full 

funding it should have received in 1990, 91, 92, and 93, ~hich, if 

based on the amount reallocated to our neighbors in 1990, would 

total $179 , 452.00. We further believe that we are entitled to a justification and explanation regarding the Bureau's actions which 

has resulted in this loss of Absentee Shawnee funds to a neighboring Tribe. 

It is my belief that , as our forefathers before us have a l so entered into agreements and treaties with the United States, the 

United States government and the government of this tribe have entered into a solemn agreement. Each of us should be assured that 

honest, full faith and credit has been exercised by each of the 

parties. The Absentee Shawnee Tribe assumed that the agents of the Federa l Government had pre sented its information in this manner, 

however, it now is apparent this was not the case. 

Thank you for your prompt response to this correspondence . 

Sincerely, 

~J~ Governor 

cc : The Honorable David L. Boren 

The Honorable Don Nickles 

The Honorable Daniel Inouye 

The Honorable John McCain 

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell 

The Honorable Bill Brewster 

The Honorable Mike Synar 

The Honorable Dave McCurdy 

The Honorable Ernest Istook 

The Honorable Glenn English 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe The nor~ble Sidney Yates 

The Honorable George Miller - House Natural Resources Committe e 

The Honorable Bill Richardson - House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs 

Wi l l i am Lavell , Director, Office of Self Governance 
40 

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Larry. Thank all of the panelists. 

Let me begin with you, Bill, if I could. Let us focus in on health 

care here. I really have a two-fold question. first of all, how many 

doctors is your particular tribe short of. And secondly, on the funding, as we have funding for Oklahoma tribes and tribal members, 

how does that compare per capita versus reservation tribal members or outside the state? Have you all as a group looked at the 

under-funding? 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Yes, we have. Let me address your second question first, if I may. 

Mr. SYNAR. All right. 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Several years ago, in 1989 I believe, we were afforded some of the information, for the first time that I am aware 

of. At that time, it showed that the tribes in Oklahoma, the Indian 

Health Service system in Oklahoma, was funded at about 11 percent of the total funding and we had 23 percent of the population. 

Of course, we are aware that there are other factors besides population that must be taken into consideration, but there is a huge 

disparity between that 11 percent and 23 percent and we see no 

justification for that. 

Mr. SYNAR. Now has that improved at all over the years? 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Yes, sir, the last figures that we have been able 

to obtain-and they are becoming ever more difficult to obtain-! 

believe in 1990 it was 13 percent of the funding that we now receive. So it has been improved, and obviously we appreciate the efforts of yourself and other members of Congress that have taken 

that on and have assisted in us receiving funding in Oklahoma, but 

the disparity still exists. 

As far as the doctor situation, I think that all Indian Health 

Service facilities have this problem, but I cannot identify each one. 

I know at Carl Albert Indian Health Facility in Ada, we have 20 

positions for physicians and as of last week, we had six people who 

were on staff. The rest of the positions, or the need has been filled 

by what I would consider a revolving door of contract doctors that 

come and stay two weeks, three weeks at a time. Others may stay 

a little longer, but they are among the minority. And many of our 

Indian people that seek health care may not see the same doctor 

twice and that is, in my opinion, a very difficult situation to deal 

with. I know that most people in this room can identify that you 

would not want to see a different doctor every time you go, especially when you are under continuing care for a particular illness. 

So we see recruitment and retention as a major problem, at least 

in Ada. And I believe that same thing holds true for many of the 

other facilities in the country. We believe there are problems within the system that cause that. And as far as identifying those, we 

would need people who are more technical in the area of health to 

help us there. The Indian Health Service system needs to be-we need to have 

a restructuring. You know, when you have doctors all throughout 

the systems-we have doctors in Oklahoma City, we have doctors 

in Washington-if we simply had their services in the field, it 

would be a lot better. 
41 

I think some of the administrative positions within Indian 

Health Service could be better filled by people who have administration background, not necessarily a doctor. 

There are a lot of other questions like that that I believe need 

to be answered or at least dealt with. In Oklahoma, more specifically, we have not ever asked-getting back to funding-we never 

asked that money be taken from another state or another region 

to come into Oklahoma. We would just like to have a more equitable situation as far as funding is concerned. 

Mr. SYNAR. And with that deviation, one would argue that that 

should be corrected. 

Wilma, let me explore with you, if I could, this self-governance 

issue. I guess the question I have is, is this a better system now 

than the self-determination contracts that we were operating 

under? Secondly, those who have opposed self-governance have 

done it because they feel some of the smaller tribes will be losing 

money because of it, at the benefit of tl;e larger tribes. And finally, 

should the education programs that you mentioned in your testimony, should they be included in it? Flesh those issues out for us 

a little bit. 

Ms. MANKILLER. Okay. Well I think that, to start with your first 

question, this is just another step in the whole self-determination 

process. My actual job here for many years-! have been here almost 17 years-was to contract programs from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service, so I have a long history of 

doing that. So at first, there was the Self-Determination Act, which 

allowed us to take over programs, and then there was the tribal 

consolidated-! forgot, some sort of tribal consolidation program 

anyway-which was the next step. And then there was self-governance. And it is the way I think things should be done. I think that 

they should be done incrementally. And I do not think we could 

have moved directly from self-determination in 1975 into self-governance. So I am pleased with the way it has been done. It has 

been steady, sure, conservative growth to where we are today. So 

I think self-governance is a good thing. 

I do not think that it takes money away from small tribes. The 

fact is, as Chairman Nuckolls pointed out, many of the small tribes 

were the first to get involved in self-governance and it was only 

later that our tribe and the other larger tribes got involved in the 

process. 

Mr. SYNAR. Let me, if I could, just interrupt you and take this 

opportunity to introduce the person we really came to hear from, 

my colleague from New Mexico, Bill Richardson, who is here. Sit 

right here, Bill. 

Let me proceed with the questions, and what we will do is come 

back to Congressman Richardson for his opening remarks. 

Go ahead, Wilma. 

Ms. MANKILLER. That is all. I think I answered your questions. 

Mr. SYNAR. Larry, let me ask you one question. You spent a considerable amount of time in your testimony, as well as in your comments, commenting on funding shortfalls. 

Mr. NUCKOLLS. Yes. 

Mr. SYNAR. The issue of funding shortfalls is not unique to your 

tribe, is it? 
42 

Mr. NUCKOLLS. No, sir. 

Mr. SYNAR. Okay. When you talk about stabilizing funding, describe the concept to me and what you would like to see. 

Mr. NUCKOLLS. Well stable funding would allow our tribe, if we 

got appropriated the dollars through the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

annually once we identify our needs and shortfalls, indirect costs 

that are included in that, would allow our tribe, which is a smaller 

tribe of close to 2800 people. That would allow us to start planning 

our future. We would know exactly how many dollars we are going 

to get each year, compared to this year when we went in and negotiated and the Office of Self-Governance in the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs arbitrarily decreased our funding level over $170,000. I 

mean, you cannot plan any type of government if your funding 

shortfalls are that amount. In 1990, I realized, negotiating the first funding agreement on 

behalf of our government, that my question at that time was, is 

this shortfall money going to be used to fund our annual funding 

agreement, and if so, if you do not streamline and reduce your organization, we are going to end up really taking a bad situation in 

years to come. And in fact, in 1993, this past year, when I sat down 

and negotiated it in good faith, we have now been decreased by 

over $170,000 and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has maintained, 

and in fact has got an increase in their budget. I cannot understand if it is a government-to-government relationship and an 

agreement that we have entered into from government-to-government, why then all of a sudden we are decreased and they have 

increased their stable funding. So it would allow us to move forward in different areas of economic development, job stability, education, things of that nature, as a small tribe, because we are not 

a large tribe. So we have identified our shortfalls. 

And also, historically, the amounts of dollars that we should 

have been getting all this time to provide housing, health care facilities and things of that nature, because we are not big. One of 

the things I would like to comment on is that we have had to negotiate IHS this year, we are under compact for that. And as Governor Anoatubby was remarking a minute ago that the severity between doctors from one area to the other. We went in and tried to 

negotiate in good faith with Indian Health Service at Rockville, 

Maryland to get into the major line items, special pay, $33 million 

in special pay. Why does my tribe participate in special pay whenever I can entice someone to come in and sit down as a doctorit is difficult if we are not able to access. And those are the funding 

levels I am talking about. 

So stable funding to my government means the difference between daylight and dark in that stable funding will allow us now 

to plan for the future. Right now, we cannot when we take a decrease of over $170,000. 

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you. 

Let me pause there and take this opportunity now to appropriately welcome my colleague, Bill Richardson, from New Mexico. 

For those of you who are not familiar with Bill, he is the chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs for the Committee 

on Interior. He also happens to be a colleague of mine on Energy 
43 

and Commerce, and we go literally back as far as two members 

can. 

There is probably not another member that I have agreed with 

more, not only Native American issues, but most issues before Congress. He is also one of the deputy whips of the United States Congress, which shows you the status that he holds. We disagree about 

one thing: it infuriates him when I look at him and put my arm 

around him and say, "I have the largest Native American Congressional District in the country, not you." He gets very mad about 

that. But the fact is, the census data does not lie and so you are 

now in the largest Native American Congressional District in the 

country and we are glad to have you here. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON [presiding]. Well Mike, thank you very much. 

And my apologies to all of you for my tardiness. We left Santa Fe 

at six o'clock this morning, we had a small plane, and some of the 

weather around Tulsa was a little diverting, so we are a little bit 

late. 

I do confess, Chief Mankiller, I know that you are hosting us 

here today, that I did go around for 12 years telling everybody that 

I had the largest Indian Congressional District in the country, 

mainly because you know the Navajo Nation is in four states, a 

good chunk of it is in New Mexico. And I would like to claim that 

the entire population of the Navajos were in New Mexico. So with 

that, I was able to surpass Mike Synar by a few thousand. 

I am now in the largest Indian Congressional District in the 

country, I concede that, I have seen the census data. But I have 

also come here because you have a very rich tradition in this state 

of Indian country and Indian issues which are important, not just 

for our Subcommittee, for our country. 

I am also very glad to be here in Mike Synar's District. I think 

one of the things that you willlea,rn about Mike Synar, besides the 

obvious friendship that we have, is when he grabs hold of an issue, 

you can be assured of three things. One, it is going to be investigated thoroughly; two, a workable solution is going to be proposed; and three, not only will he fight for the solution being advanced but until it is implemented, he never lets go. 

Needless to say, he is one of the most effective legislators in 

Washington on a variety of issues. And I do not have to tell you 

this, but when it comes to Native American issues, he is always 

there. And you know that he has been the one that pioneered the 

issue of BIA trust fund mismanagement. In other words, how can 

we be more efficient as we administer programs through the BIA. 

For five years, he has taken up the issue of the BIA fund mismanagement. How can we properly invest tribal funds, make 

money on them and ensure that for future generations the funds 

are there for our tribes? 

This bipartisan Subcommittee has proposed a bill which we, I 

think for the first time in the history of our Committee, we have 

had a Subcommittee on Native American Affairs and we are going 

to move shortly on Congressman Synar's bill, which as you know, 

deals with ensuring that the trust funds, the entire issue that we 

are discussing today, among many others, will be disposed effectively and efficiently. 
44 

We are concerned about the management of these funds and I 

think what is very important is that tribes have more access and 

control over these funds. That is not happening and we are here 

today to talk about a variety of issues. I think my good friend and 

colleague has already initiated some of those questions. 

I also want to thank Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller. I understand you were in New Mexico recently. 

Ms. MANKILLER. In fact, we are planning to have-! am chairing 

a conference to have Janet Reno come to the University of New 

Mexico and listen to our tribes who have issues. Every tribe in the 

country will be invited and we hope you will be able to attend. I 

think it will be the first week in May, in Albuquerque. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Of course. And I also want to thank you, as I 

said earlier, for allowing us to use the Tribal Council Chambers to 

conduct this hearing. You and your staff, needless to say, have 

been very accommodating. The Cherokees and the other great Indian nations of Oklahoma have a long and unique history which I 

am committed to learning about. 

Let me now if I could ask Chief Mankiller-earlier I understand 

you said that you wanted to discuss the trust fund management 

issue. Do you want to tell us what you think we should do with 

that? 

Ms. MANKILLER. Well first of all, I am encouraged that there is 

apparently a Senate bill that is going to address the trust fund 

management situation, and I know that Mike has been working on 

this for a long time. My concern is that Bureau of Indian Affairs 

needs to see itself as sort of a-someone who has fiduciary responsibility for monies. What concerns me about this whole issue is if 

you are a corporation or a private citizen and you have assets, you 

can take them to an asset manager and they have a responsibility 

to take care of your assets. If they do not, you fire them. Well what 

has happened in this case is that basically tribes do not have any 

other choice except to use this particular asset manager. And I 

guess, so that I do not go on and on about the issue, you know 

more about it than I do, that is my big concern, that there be some 

mechanism so that people have some control over what is going to 

happen with their money. 

There have been 18 separate GAO studies that have talked about 

the mismanagement, millions and millions, tens of millions of dollars that have been lost. And all the studies, including the last one 

in the late 1980s, project that there will be many more millions lost 

because of recordkeeping problems and all kinds of problems. And 

it just seems to me that in the real world this would not go on. If 

you have money, you take it to somebody, they manage it, they invest it, you get a good return on it. And if they do not do a good 

job, you do something else. 

And so I guess my big concern is that there be some other mechanism available to tribes for dealing with that. Mr. SYNAR. I think, Wilma, you are absolutely right. Bill and I 

would tell you that this has been a story that is one of the sad 

chapters of American history. If this had happened with social security, we would have had a war over this. Regarding the two billion dollar trust fund that we have the fiduciary responsibility to 

manage on behalf of the tribes and individual members, regrettably 
45 

I could tell you today and Bill would concur, that, if we went to 

Albuquerque and asked them for an accounting, just a reconciliation of the individual accounts, they could not give it to you. And 

this is after literally staying on their backs for five years. 

The legislation that Bill and I are supporting will try to do that 

at a minimum. But, secondly, we must get the kind of asset control 

that is so critical. Literally, people have gone bankrupt because 

they cannot gei the monies that are owed to them, and tribes have 

literally been unable to function. And this is something which, as 

the Oversight Chainnan for the BIA, I intend to solve. I have to 

tell you that Bill Richardson has made this one of his highest priorities as Subcommittee Chainnan, so I think we are looking at completing this as soon as possible. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chief Mankiller, let me ask you a question 

which I know is very sensitive here in Oklahoma and which I think 

you discussed earlier before I arrived. The consolidation of the area 

offices here, the BIA offices. What is your view about that? I have 

felt that we have to consolidate BIA offices-! do not have a stateby-state plan, but I do think we have to be more efficient in the 

way we dispense BIA management over Indian nations. It is my 

view, and I think many of us including Mike, have promoted the 

concept of self-governance, a lot of these self-detennination initiatives, where the tribe basically is dealing and running most of the 

management from the BIA. That is my view in the long range, that 

we should move in that direction. 

But again, tell me about the particular situation in your state 

and maybe the two Governors would also like to discuss this because this is within our jurisdiction, and I could not come here 

without discussing it with you. 

Ms. MANKILLER. Mr. Chainnan, I am happy to comment on that. 

I have been a long time advocate for streamlining the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. It is my view that tribes, as they become involved 

in self-detennination and then later self-governance, have changed 

dramatically, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has not changed accordingly to accommodate the changes. I do believe that there 

should be streamlining. 

My problem with the present plan, this particular plan, is the 

fact that it is not applied unifonnly. Only Oklahoma is being asked 

to consolidate and to make these kinds of changes and it is not 

being applied uniformly. Whatever changes that are made to reduce services to tribes from the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be 

done nationwide, but it should not just be focused on Oklahoma. 

The idea, as I understand it, is that we will consolidate in Oklahoma, have a massive reduction in force in Oklahoma and then we 

will do it in the other states. Well I do not buy that. I think that 

whatever plan is devised should be applied unifonnly across the 

United States at the outset. 

But I want to make it clear that I am not against streamlining, 

I am not against becoming more efficient or reducing the force, just 

the concept of that in general. But this specific plan, I do not think 

is fair. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Governors. 
46 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Good morning, Mr. Congressman, Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity to be here. I think the Chickasaw 

people would want me to give you greetings. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Mr. ANoATUBBY. And I most certainly do that. I usually have a 

longer introduction. We are known as unconquered and unconquerable. 

Addressing the issue of consolidation, obviously I think most people want efficiency and they want streamlining, they want the most 

effective system that you possibly can have-1 know we do. The nationwide committee that sat down as a task force to reorganize the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs made some recommendations along these 

lines as well. I think that those people's opinions should be considered. 

I am not real sensitive on this issue, but I think it would have 

been nice if the tribes that were affected would have been consulted. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. You were not consulted? The BIA did not consult you? 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. No, we were not consulted, we were advised. 

Mr. SYNAR. The Congressional delegation was not consulted. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. And I know in the thick of things, sometimes 

you forget people, but there was a large group of people that were 

forgotten. And again, some people may be more sensitive about 

that than others, but I truly believe that if a plan had been developed that we could live with, perhaps it would have been a little 

easier to swallow. 

But I also believe that if there are savings that are going to be 

achieved, that that savings should go to the local level, not be withdrawn. More especially in Oklahoma because of the under-funding 

in Oklahoma. We are drastically under-funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs as well as Indian Health, as I pointed out 

earlier. We certainly cannot stand to lose those dollars. 

I know in an effort to streamline government, as far as the federal government is concerned, one of your major reasons for doing 

that is to save money. Well if you are going to save money in the 

area offices, please by all means let the Indian tribes share in those 

savings and utilize it-utilize those savings for dollars that will be 

benefiting the Indian people. And those are our major concerns, 

Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Governor Nuckolls, you were not consulted either on this? 

Mr. NUCKOLLS. By letter after it was done. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. By letter afterwards. 

Mr. NUCKOLLS. Mterwards. 

I served on the national task force to reorganize the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs in 1990-1991. I saw first-hand with the Inspector 

General's office coming in and some of the things that we were 

working on during that era. My biggest concern is that when we 

do streamline the Bureau of Indian Affairs that the dollars will go 

back to the taxpayers that provide those dollars. To streamline an 

organization as large as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I think that 

if there is any savings, it needs to go to the tribes. 
47 

You know, I made a remark earlier that our agreement as a government is with the United States and the BIA, IHS, Bureau of 

Land Management and all the other agencies are just that, they 

are agencies. It is very difficult to say that here in Oklahoma, we 

need one area office. If it is going to be one area office and there 

is a savings across the board, I am in total agreement with Chief 

Mankiller that it needs to be done nationwide, that if there is a 

savings, it needs to go to the tribes. 

Still yet, it was beyond my thinking and logic, I think in the mid- dle 1980s that the tribes did get together, did some consultations, they came up with recommendations and the Bureau of Indian Affairs never implemented them. Then all of a sudden we come up 

with a national task force to reorganize the Bureau and still hashing over the same thing, constantly. Our classic example is they get an increase, we get a decrease 

this year in our annual funding agreement. You know, where is the 

sanity in that? 

So I feel very strongly that there needs to be streamlining, reorganization. We sent down a document one time down to Anadarko, 

they sent it back to us, we sent it back to them, they sent it back 

to us. Then it was finally right, we sent it back and it was right 

across the hall, the guy could have walked across with the docu- ment and gave it to them and saved time. Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me just ask one final question. Governor 

Nuckolls, you raised this issue of the health care in Oklahoma, and 

you have been on many task forces. Obviously we have a similar 

problem with Alaska and California, huge Indian populations but 

for some reason, you are under-funded when it comes to health 

care allocations and that is the IHS making some of their funding 

needs assessments. Governor Anoatubby, what do we need to do with this? Should 

we deal with this in the health care, the national health care bill, 

or do we have to do this internally within the IHS? This strikes 

me as flagrantly wrong. 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Well obviously we are not certain of what was 

intended or what will happen within the reform package. We know 

if we were properly included, the Indian Health Service would get 

more funding and we would be more likely to be able to serve the 

needs of our people. One thing that I mentioned earlier is that we 

believe that that unique relationship that exists between the Indian nations and the federal government should continue, and that 

may mean that Indian Health Service will have to be treated differently than the other agencies. 

Obviously, the funding, as I mentioned earlier, the disparity that 

exists, the last figures-and I have those with me and we may wish 

to turn those over to you--

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, would you submit these for the record? 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Most certainly, I will do that. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. They will be inserted in the record. 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. We presented those last year on our trip to 

Washington as the five civilized tribes, as you will recall, Congressman Synar. The current figures we do not have, but the latest figures show 

that we had about 13 percent of the funding for Indian Health 
48 

Service and between 22 and 23 percent of the population. And 

again, the difference is unwarranted, even though there may be 

other factors that will be considered. 

And how do we deal with it? Goodness, that is a real challenge, 

but I truly believe that we must give our attention to it. We have 

never asked that the funding from other parts of the country come 

to Oklahoma, but if additional funding becomes available, then we 

need to get in Oklahoma a share that will continue to make up this 

disparity. 

A couple of years there after we made our first trip to D.C.-

Washington, on this matter, that has been about four years ago I 

believe, funding began to come to this area. But as far as I can tell 

now that same-that is not being continued. We are going to have 

to bring it back up as an issue. The funding-you cannot provide 

good health care unless there is proper funding. And in the reform 

package, what we have seen, some of the integrity of the system 

that we have now may be affected. We want most certainly to protect the relationship that we now have. And I hope I answered your 

question. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. In fact, Marie from our staff is telling me that 

that portion of the national health care plan has been referred to 

our Subcommittee, so we are going to deal with this issue and I 

know Mike and I have talked about working together on the selfgovernance provisions, which were the subject of the first part of 

your testimony. 

And lastly, on the area offices, I must say that I agree with you. 

I was unaware that the consolidation just affected you. It does not 

surprise me that the BIA did not consult you, sometimes their level 

of consulting with even-! am the Chair of their Subcommittee, 

maybe the staff has been consulted about this but I was not. And 

I do not think that is right. I do think that if we are going to consolidate, it should be shared equally, including New Mexico, I can 

tell you that. I have said before in New Mexico that my area offices, they need a little consolidation, they have got too many people. We need the funds to go directly to the tribe and the tribe can 

manage those funds. And I think you here in Oklahoma, from what 

I understand, you manage your tribes very efficiently and I think 

the record has shown that over the years. And so for this reason, 

Mike and I will go back and work on this. 

One thing, Chief Mankiller, that I do want before I leave, which 

is this afternoon, I told Kate Boyce that I wanted an autographed 

copy of your last book, because I think it shows the strength that 

you have brought to leadership in Indian country. And I must say 

I know this is not a hearing testimonial, but many of us have admired you over the years for the work you have done, not just in 

Indian country, but for our country. Ms. MANK.ILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. So I want to thank you. Do you want to 

add--

Mr. ANOATUBBY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add one more 

thing before we get too far away from Indian health. 

The five tribes, the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and 

Seminole, have a committee that, since the reform was first discussed, they have been reviewing the Indian Health Service and 
49 

the refonn package, and we have some recommendations for you 

and we would like to present those to you as soon as we can. 

Mr. SYNAR. That will be very timely, because both Bill and I will 

be on the committee of jurisdiction that will write this legislation 

and our schedule is to begin markup in late February. 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. In fact, at the Inter-Tribal Council meeting last 

Friday, those recommendations were adopted by the Council. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chief, did you want--

Ms. MANKILLER. All I wanted to comment is to add to that, that 

when we looked in Washington at the health care refonn package, 

it was kind of blank, there were not many details, we came home 

and decided to create our own details. That is the five tribes' recommendation, so they are real and we have spent a lot of time on 

them. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Could you submit those for the record? Are 

they completed? 

Ms. MANKILLER. Yes, I can. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. So you will submit them for the record of this 

hearing? 

Ms. MANKILLER. Sure. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. And I will ask your staff, perhaps Kate and 

others, to immediately meet with our staffs, because Mike is correct, we are marking up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, 

the Health Subcommittee, in mid-February, and our Subcommittee 

on Indian Affairs has jurisdiction on the Indian component. So 

please, let us not wait much longer. 

I want to thank the three distinguished witnesses. My apologies 

again for being late. I hope in the days ahead as my chairmanship 

unfolds, to visit your nations, unless you do not want me there. 

Mr. ANOATUBBY. We welcome you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you all very much. We will now proceed 

to the second panel. We will start with the Honorable Bill S. Fife, 

Principal Chief, Creek Nation; Honorable Martha Banderas, Vice 

Chairperson, Apache Business Committee, Anadarko, Oklahoma; 

Mr. Perry Hauser, the Chainnan of the Oklahoma Indian Gaming 

Association, Seneca, Oklahoma; and Diane Kelly-I know she is 

here because she was at the airport picking me up-Recording Secretary, National Congress of American Indians for Eastern Oklahoma. Although I know that her testimony, because of the weather 

in Washington, did not arrive, but I know that she can give the testimony without looking down at any piece of paper. 

Mr. SYNAR. Bill, if I could while they are coming forward, I would 

also like to recognize a number of our state representatives and 

state senators-Herb Rozelle, Larry Adair and Bob Culver, are all 

here representing the state today. We also have Senator Boren's office here. 

Anyway, we want to thank all them. You guys wave your hands, 

we really appreciate you all being here today to assist us. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Fife, please proceed. 

Let me mention to the witnesses because of the time constraints, 

we are urging witnesses to keep their statements to within five 

minutes so that we can engage in a good Q&A session because we 

find in our Subcommittee that is the most productive part for us. 
50 

So if you can, we will allow a little bit of latitude. The Chief Counsel of our Committee here, renown Ph.D.s will be administering the 

little green light. So when you see the red light, it means that if 

you could please wrap up. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. BILLS. FIFE, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, 

CREEK NATION, OKMULGEE, OK; PERRY HAUSER, CHAIRMAN, OKLAHOMA INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, SENECA, 

OK; DIANE KELLY, RECORDING SECRETARY, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS FOR EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL S. FIFE 

Mr. FIFE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Synar. 

I have come to this oversight field hearing to address important 

issues and concerns of the Muscogee Nation and generally those of 

Indian country. 

A most important issue is economic development. Over the last 

25 years, the federal government has taken a myriad of approaches 

to economic development on Indian reservations. Nevertheless, 

tribes still are greatly lacking in this area. The Muscogee Nation 

has focused on economic development as a means to empower 

Muscogee communities with tools required to become self-determined. It is a means to strengthen Muscogee families to meet problems head-on. Economic development allows the Muscogee government to responsibly provide its citizens the services they need. 

Economic development is capacity-building, the capacity of the 

tribal government, to expand its tax base, to provide investment 

opportunities for its citizens and building capacity for education 

loans and housing through bond programs, the capacity to regulate 

commerce within its jurisdictional boundaries. It is also the capacity of the local community to provide local employment and the capacity of individuals to earn a living, to earn a decent wage to raise 

their standard of living. 

The assertion of tribal sovereignty has allowed the Muscogee Nation to enter into the gaming business. With revenues generated 

from the operations of our bingo facilities, the Muscogee Nation 

supplements dollar-for-dollar Bureau of Indian Affairs allocations 

for program services. 

The Muscogee Nation economic development projects have not 

only provided funds for health services, higher education, scholarships and nutrition programs for the elderly, but most importantly, 

have created real jobs where there were no jobs at all. This is 

merely the first step to tribal self-sufficiency through self-determination. 

Let me illustrate to you the many obstacles the Muscogee Nation 

must overcome before economic development is allowed to prosper. 

Valuable resources, both financial and human, have been squandered on unnecessary litigation concerning tobacco taxation in the 

state of Oklahoma. These resources have been used to advanceshould have been used to advance the general well-being of the citizens of the Muscogee Nation. The cause of the problem is not necessarily state government versus tribal government wrestling for 

control. It is the maze of federal law that imparts federal instru-
51 

mentality jurisdiction on the state courts over exclusive tribal jurisdictional matters. 

Approximately 50 statutes target specifically the five tribes of 

eastern Oklahoma's land, minerals and tribal sovereignty. Legislative reform is the only possible alternative for resolving the misinformation, misconceptions and termination policy contained in the 

specific statutes. Federal statutory reform should not take place 

without tribal consultation. One point is Class III gaming compacts with the states. All 

across the United States, state governments and tribal governments are entering into compacts as mutual partners and sharing 

in the benefits of economic development. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and subsequent judicial decisions regarding the Act 

make Class III compacts an option of the state and not an option 

for the tribes. This is the case in Oklahoma. Our tribe has negotiated in good faith with the state. To date, there are no Class III 

gaming compacts in the state. Federal legislative reform must take 

place to resolve the impasse that has occurred. Again, the exercise 

of tribal sovereignty must be provided for in order for economic development to occur. 

Let us not misinterpret the Muscogee Nation's position to be one 

of inaction on the part of the Congress. Public Law 103-176, the 

Indian Tribal Justice Act, is a long overdue initiative. The Native 

American Trust Accounting and Management Act, H.R. 1846, is 

one the Muscogee Nation supports and urges enactment. 

Legislation must be passed to make self-governance demonstration projects permanent. We urge your support on this measure. In 

a declining resource economy, only tribal redesigned BIA functions, 

services and activities, will accommodate more and better with less. 

However, many of the obstacles to Indian economic development for 

the five tribes of eastern Oklahoma would vanish if existing termination laws were rescinded and reflected the current U.S. policy of 

tribal self-determination. 

Full restoration of the Indian Financing Act must be considered 

during the next session of Congress. The Direct Loan and Grant 

Program for the Bureau of Indian Affairs must be restored in a 

manner whereby tribes are not competing against individual Indians for the same funds. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask that Congress give much attention to the administration's initiative to cut all fiscal year 1994 federal programs by three percent. I think this has an effect on every 

program we have. Health care, it would mean a decline in us providing health services. A three percent budget cut means the 

Muscogee Nation would have more diabetes complications, higher 

infant mortality rates, more pulmonary disease and cardiac arrests. 

It would restrict us. 

And I just ask that you carry back to Washington when Congress 

assembles a message that is simply that tribal government development is economic development. And I appreciate your time here 

today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, very eloquent. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fife follows:] 
52 

TESTIMONY ON ECONOMIC ISSUES 

BEFORE 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICANS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Field Hearing 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

Submitted by 

Bill S. Fife, Principal Chief 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 
53 

STATEMENT TO THE U.S. HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE on NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE on NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

CONCERNING INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA 

JANUARY 20, 1994 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Mr. Synar. I am Bill Fife, Principal 

Chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. It is a pleasure to appear at 

this oversight field hearing and share with you the issues and 

concerns of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and generally those of 

Indian country. 

Economic development means different things to different people. 

Over the last twenty-five years the Federal government has taken a 

myriad of approaches to the pressing problem of economic 

development on Indian reservations. 

Economic development means to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation the 

opportunity to empower Muscogee communities with the tools required 

to become self-determined. It means strengthening Muscogee families 

to weather the mighty storms that life delivers. It means to the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation to responsibly provide to the citizens of 

the Muscogee Nation the services deserving of them. 

To accomplish the task of local community development and the 

strengthening of families the Muscogee (Creek) Nation must be 

afforded the opportunity to exercise all of those duties, 

obligations, and responsibilities, that a sovereign government 

exercises. I submit to you today that the exercise of tribal 

sovereignty is in fact economic development. 

The assertion of tribal sovereignty has allowed the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation to enter into the gaming business. With the revenues 

generated from the operation of bingo facilities the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation supplements dollar for dollar Bureau of Indian 

Affairs allocations for program services. Muscogee Nation economic 

development projects have not only provided funds for health 

services, higher education scholarships, and nutrition programs for 

the elderly, but most importantly have created real jobs where 

there were no jobs before. 

This is merely the first step down the long road to tribal selfsufficiency through self-determination. Let me illustrate to you 

the many obstacles the Muscogee (Creek) Nation must overcome before 

economic development is allowed to prosper in the Muscogee Nation. 

Valuable resources, both financial and human, have been squandered 

on unnecessary litigation concerning tobacco taxation in the state 

of Oklahoma. These resources should have been used to advance the 

general well being of the citizens of the Muscogee Nation. The 
54 

-2-

cause of the problem is not necessarily state government versus 

tribal government wrestling for control. It is the maize of 

cumbersome and confusing federal laws that imparts federal 

instrumentality jurisdiction on the state courts over exclusive 

tribal jurisdictional matters. Approximately fifty statutes target 

specifically the Five Tribes of eastern Oklahoma's land, minerals, 

and tribal sovereignty, for overt intentional divestiture of the 

very resources required to exist as a people and a tribal 

government. Legislative reform is the only possible alternative for 

resolving the misinformation, misconception, and termination policy 

contained in the specific statutes. 

Should federal statutory reform not take place forthwith, with 

tribal consultation, real Indian economic development will not take 

place . Jurisdictional issue will continue to consume scarce tribal 

resources and the quality of life in the Muscogee Creek) Nation 

will remain below that of the poorest nations. 

One point is Class III gaming compacts with the states. All across 

the United States state governments and tribal governments are 

entering into compacts as mutual partners and are sharing in the 

benefits of economic development. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 

and subsequent judicial decisions regarding the Act, make Class III 

compacts an option of the state government. 

This is the case in Oklahoma. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation has 

negotiated in good faith with the state of Oklahoma. To date no 

Class III gaming compact has been approved. Federal legislative 

reform must take place to provide for the impasse that has 

occurred. Again the exercise of tribal sovereignty must be provided 

for in order for economic development to occur. 

Do not misinterpret the Muscogee (Creek) Nation ' s position to be 

one of inaction on the part of the Congress. P.L . 103-176, the 

Indian Tribal Justice Act, is a long over due initiative. The 

Native American Trust Accounting and Management Act, H.R. 1846, is 

one the Muscogee (Creek) Nation supports and· urges enactment. 

Legislation must be passed to make the Self-Governance 

Demonstration Project permanent . S . 1618 to accomplish this goal 

has passed out of the Senate. The House companion bill H.R . 3508 

must be passed out of the House as well . We urge your support for 

this measure . In a declining resource economy only tribally redesi gned BIA funct i ons, services and activities, will accommodate 

more and better with less. However, many of the obstacles to Indian 

economic development for the Five Tribes of eastern Oklahoma would 

vanish if existing termination laws were rescinded or reflected the 

current United States policy of tribal self-determination . 

Full restoration of the Indian Financing Act must be considered 

duri ng the next session of the Congress. The Direct Loan and Grant 

Program, formally a part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Credit and 
55 

-3-

Finance Program, must be restored in a manner where tribes are not 

competing against indi vidual Indians for the same source of funds. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman I ask the Congress give much attention to the 

administrations initiative to cut all FY-94 federal programs by 3%. 

One would not think 3% amounts to very much. In the area of health 

care, which the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is an Indian Health Service 

'638 contractor, a 3% cut represents basic life preserving medical 

procedures, quality medical professionals, medicines the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation is already financially strained to provide, health 

care facilities to provide health services accessible to the 

elderly, children, and rural communities. A 3% budget cut means to 

the Muscogee (Creek) Nation more d i abetes complications, a higher 

infant mortality rate, and more pulmonary disease and cardiac 

arrests. 

I end this presentation of the issues and concerns of the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation r egarding Indian economic development with one 

thought I ask you to carry with you to Washington when the Congress 

assembles and that is simply tribal government development is 

economic development. 

I thank you for your time and the opportunity to present this 

message today. Okes Ce. 
56 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chairman Hauser, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PERRY HAUSER 

Mr. HAUSER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to you and 

Mike both for not having the written statements in, but I have 

been involved in a national meeting in Green Bay and I have luggage somewhere between Green Bay and who knows where. But 

Green Bay, I do appreciate the Oneidas up there, they did have 

record cold temperatures for us while we were there. 

Indian gaming is the new buffalo for the tribes in Oklahoma. We 

all have our own governments and we have our own regulations set 

up. We comply with federal statutes. To us, we are a small tribe 

in northeastern Oklahoma, we went from four employees eight 

years ago to 79 employees now, two of those having to be doctors. This is economic development we all started with what we made 

from gaming. Gaming is a very lucrative business when it is properly managed as the tribes in Oklahoma are all striving to do, to 

comply with the federal statutes. Gaming expanding in Oklahoma-as Mike has referred to, we 

are the Bible belt. We have real nice gaming in Oklahoma that is 

where you can send your grandmother to have a nice evening out, 

well-lighted, protected. It is the beginning for economic development and self-sufficiency for the tribes. 

We have started two optometry facilities, we are looking at a 

sign development company. We have started these all with our own 

monies. We are gradually trying to employ more people. 

Where we are located in northeastern Oklahoma, we just had a 

major company shut down and left 3,500 people unemployed. We 

are now employing-{)ver 30 percent of our employees are non-Indian. We are branching out each day into wider areas. We need the 

opportunity to be able to expand gaming with the modern electronic facilities that are available for more accurate accounting and 

allowing us to keep track of where our funds are going. Our monies, most of the tribes here, you ask them how much they make 

and they will give you a real nice round figure of "it is our business 

and not yours." We have taken our monies and we now provide $300 per semester for every tribal member that is enrolled in college. We provide eyeglasses for them, we provide hearing aids for 

them, we provide emergency prescriptions for them. We now provide burial service for our people. This is all done with our money. 

We have never had our money before. We make in excess of 

$100,000 a month. Seven years ago, we thought $5000 was a major accomplishment. The employment of our people, the self-esteem an individual has 

when they have a job and can be able to take care of their family. 

Gaming is very important and very critical to us. Every time I 

go to D.C., that is three kids that are not going to get their textbooks bought. I have been to D.C. about 14 times since last March. 

We are supporting the Inouye process of clarifying the federal law 

to allow tribes to game and game with accountability, respectability 

and legally. 

The tribes in Oklahoma are all supporting this process. We hope 

to have this process in place. Senator Inouye, at our last meeting, 

said sometime in February there would be a bill, an amendment 
57 

to 100-497, to clarify some of the gray areas. Most of the other 

tribes in Oklahoma know I am a specialist in gray areas. I tend 

to do things in the gray areas a lot. When they clarify gray areas, 

we do not do it no more. 

We need your support in allowing the tribes to gain with accountability and legally game, and we do not need the state involved in it. If we have a compact and you have got a national commission setting up there, why do we need to go through the state 

and then go to the national commission for the same thing? The 

state of Oklahoma, the Governor or whatever we have in that position at this time, has chose to ignore Indian tribes-has chose to 

ignore the Indian population. And the Indian people in Oklahoma 

do appreciate you taking the time to come to Oklahoma and listen 

to our concerns and not ignore us as people. 

I appreciate your time. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. 

Madam Kelly. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE KELLY 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Richardson, Congressman 

Synar. 

I am very happy and pleased to be here representing the National Congress of American Indians today, which is the oldest national Indian organization nationwide. We represent 158 federally 

recognized tribes throughout the United States. 

I would like to apologize and beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman 

and Mr. Synar. We have a 12-page written testimony that will be 

forthcoming. I guess you are aware that we are having inclement 

weather back in Washington. The testimony did not arrive on time 

and I was asked to come up and just make a few comments, so I 

will not take up a whole lot of your time. 

The four issues that are on the agenda: self-governance, health 

care reform, gaming and economic development are four issues that 

the National Congress of American Indians has worked very hard 

and diligently with a lot of the tribes in making sure that these 

things are brought forth to the Congress and the Senate, to take 

specific issue on. 

The National Congress of American Indians is very supportive of 

making self-governance a permanent program within the Department of Interior as well as IHS. The self-governance programs have 

demonstrated the Indian self-determination for the tribes and we 

feel like this is a step forward for Indian tribes. We are very supportive of this and committed to working with those tribes and 

other tribes that are forthcoming for self-governance, self-determination. 

When we talk about gaming and economic development, NCAI 

had a very extensive economic development forum in Omaha, Nebraska just recently, put together a very lengthy economic development document which was put together by a lot of tribes that have 

economic development ventures out there. I believe that a copy has 

been forwarded to your office. So we do a lot of work in economic 

development, and then when we talk about gaming, we fully support the work of the gaming task force and the work that they are 

doing on issues that are detrimental to the tribes themselves that 
58 

are going out into the gaming operations for the economic development and bringing back monies to the tribes to help with funding 

programs such as education and health. 

When we talk about health care reform, the National Congress 

has done a lot of extensive work with a lot of the tribes in putting 

together testimony in support of some of the reorganization as far 

as health care reform for the Indians nationwide. 

The National Congress would like to say, in our closing remarks 

today, that we want you to remember that we are out here and 

that we appreciate you having these hearings today, giving the 

tribes an opportunity to make comment. And we want the Congressional side to remember that we want consultation and we want to 

have input before these changes are actually made, and we do not 

want to be ignored. 

Thank you. Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. I will first recognizebefore I recognize Congressman Synar for his questions, I will put 

in the record the testimony of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Honorable Banderas' testimony. That will be fully inserted in the 

record. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Banderas follows:] 
59 

APACHE TRIBE of OKLAHOMA 

TESTIMONY - FIELD HEARING 

SUBCOMMITTEE on NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

of the COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

10:30 a.m.; JANUARY 20, 1994 

CHEROKEE TRIBAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 

W. W. KEELER TRIBAL COMPLEX 

TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA 

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma has determined that the future of the Tribe must 

rely upon the effort of the Apache People. This will be accomplished by Tribal 

legislation and Tribal economic projects that will provide the required budgetary needs 

essential to Tribal services: government; health; education; jobs; housing; and, etc. 

The Apache membership must develop to the fullest extent all available Tribal 

resources. 

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma is not demanding additional federal dollars to 

provide these services to the Tribal membership. Only, the full cooperation of Congress 

to develop the resources available to the Tribe under existing treaty a·greements and 

existing federal law. This Federai!Tribal cooperation will ensure that the needs of the 

Tribal membership are addressed into the future. 

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma will take this opportunity to address four areas of 

vital Tribal integrity. The identified areas are presently not providing the most benefits 

to the Tribe as was the intent of Congress. Although, these subjects have not met the 

goals for the Native Americans; these problems can be corrected by a sincere 

FederalfTribal effort. The Apache People are requesting your attention and assistance 

in these important topics. 

First, Tribal Gaming operations. The recognition and support of the basic 

principles of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (I.G.R.A.). The intent of Congress was 

to acknowledge that Native American Tribes have the sovereign ability to engage in 

gaming activities as a means of economic development. Economic Development 

projects will provide capital investments funding to develop other non-gaming ventures; 

funding that is sorely needed in Western Oklahoma. 

Congress identified Tribal Gaming as a resource for the Tribe to attain self 

sufficiency. Tribal independence from the Federal and State assistance: removing 

people from welfare programs; creation of jobs and career opportunities; providing for 

safe roads; Tribal assistance with the infrastructure of municipalities that have high 

Tribal population. · 

Gaming resources will provide for a strong Tribal Government. Governmental 
60 

services are the legislative, the judicial, the law .enforcement, and administrative 

branches. 

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma is requesting the active participation of the 

Subcommittee in opposing any legislation that will specifically limit the ability of the 

Apache People to engage in Tribal Gaming operations, as was the intent of Congress 

set forth in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Legislation that is being lobbied for by 

non-Indian special interest; as an example, the testimony of Donald Trump. Testimony 

of rampant organized crime infiltration into Indian Gaming operations. The I.G.R.A. 

specific intent is to regulate Indian Gaming and to ensure that Indian Gaming is 

shielded from organized crime and other corrupting influences. Donald Trump cited the 

"uneven playing field" of Indian Gaming as an advantage over non-Indian Gaming, and 

the "look" of some Tribes involved in gaming activities. Not only a blatant racist 

commentary but a ludicrous observation; considering the enormous sums of venture 

capital available to non-Indian Gaming. Testimony also noted that the Tribal 

membership were not receiving the actual moneys generated from Tribal Gaming 

operations. The I.G.R.A. was written to ensure that the Tribe is the primary beneficiary 

of the gaming operation; and, the National Indian Gaming Commission (N.I.G.C.) was 

created to ensure that all the ideals and goals set forth by Congress are met. 

Although, the N.I.G.C. is relatively new as a functioning body, the intent of 

Congress as set forth in the I.G.R.A. is evidently working. Reference the testimony 

given to the House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, on October 5, 1993, by 

the F.B.I., the I.R.S. and the Department of Justice. There is no organized crime with in 

the Indian Gaming Industry. Indian Gaming operations do not have criminal infiltration 

and are better regulated than non-Indian Gaming operations. 

The Apache Gaming operations need the Subcommittee support in the Indian 

Gaming Negotiation process between the States and the Indian Nations, a negotiation 

process set forth by Sen. Inouye and Sen. McCain. Negotiations that require a 

substantial investment of time and resources in an effort to find workable solutions to 

gaming problems that arise between the States and the Indian Nations. This is a 

positive step in eliminating expensive litigation and demeaning adversarial positions 

between the States and Indian Nations. We are attempting to find meaningful solution 

that will allow the States and the Indian Nations to redirect valuable resources into more 

positive and constructive directions. 

Second, United States Indian Public Health Service. The inadequate and 

unrealistic situation of the present policy of Indian Health care. Specifically, the 

Anadarko Agency Service Area. A service area that has one hospital facility for the 

health care of seven Tribes in the Anadarko Agency. A hospital that was originally 

constructed and budgeted to accommodate 25,000 individuals; and today has 65,000 

active medical charts. The health needs of the Native Americans with in this service 

area are drastic and require immediate attention. A Federai!Tribal cooperation that will 

re-evaluate present Public Health Service policy and incorporate realistic and positive 

methods of providing health care. 

Also, it is essential to re-evaluate the present policy of funding existing health 

care facilities. All Tribes with in the Anadarko Agency have very restrictive and closed 

Tribal enrollment policies. This trait places all the Tribes at a severe disadvantage 
61 

TESTIMONY- Jon. 20, 1994-Apoche Tribe of O~lahoma 

Subcommlt!M on Nltlve Amlrican Afllllrs Committee on Natural Rftources 

when our service area must compete with large population service areas that are based 

upon very liberal and open enrollment policies. The Public Health Service must include 

these Tribal policies and develop a more realistic policy of funding allocation. 

Third, the Area Office. C.F.R. Court System. Present C.F.R. court system is not 

responsive tci the requirements of the Tribe. The Tribe has endeavored to create the 

proper atmosphere for economic development. This is being accomplished with new 

Tribal legislation that allows and encourages business activities. But, the present 

C.F.R. court system discourages and inhibits Tribal business enterprises. Specifically, 

the explicit exclusion of non-Indian prosecution within the C.F.R. At present, anyone 

with an ax to grind can bring actions against the Tribe (usually, by identifying individuals 

who have specific responsibilities for Tribal operations) without fear of redress or court 

expense. Whereas, the Tribe must redirect resources to answer the charges: i.e., 

employees spending time and Tribal money in activities not in the scope of their job 

descriptions; budgeting of funds for legal counsel with funds that could be used in areas 

more beneficial to the Tribe. Limited ability of the present C.F.R. court system to 

adequately meet the needs of the Tribe. Albeit, in economic development or as an 

impedance to Tribal goals and activities. The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma needs: active 

support and assistance with developing and implementing an Apache Tribal Court; use 

the B.I.A. resources to be an advocate of the Tribe's sovereignty. Place the immense 

power of the B.I.A. legal framework at the disposal of the Tribe. Ensure that the 

objectives behind the concept of the C.F.R. court system are realized , the legal 

assistance and protection is extended fully to the Tribe. 

Law Enforcement. The Tribal Smoke Shop, located in the main Tribal Complex 

administration building, Anadarko, OK, has been burglarized three times in the last 

three years. No perpetrators have been identified or charged in any occasion. 

Vandalism at the Apache Tribal Trading Post have been rampant and has created an 

unnecessary burden upon the revenues generated from the convenience store 

operation. The Tribe is required to rely upon a system that is wholly understaffed and 

under financed for the jurisdictional areas that it has responsibility. The Tribe is clearly 

at a disadvantage when the compliance or enforcement of Tribal ordinal law is 

necessary. The Tribe needs the concentrated effort by the B.I.A. to develop the Tribal 

resources and personnel to implement a Law Enforcement program Tribally operated. 

Economic Development. The Apache Development Authority. a separate entity 

of the Tribe with the responsibility of developing business projects for the Tribe, has 

received information from the B. I.A. loan officer that there are no funds available at this 

time. Limited access to necessary technical assistance for completion of financial 

packages and business plans. Time frames for accessing B.I.A. funding are usually 

detrimental to Tribal business enterprises. The B.I.A. emphasis needs to be placed 

upon supplying the necessary technical assistance and funding of Tribal business 

projects in a more expeditious manner. 

Higher Education and Vocational Training. These are vital areas that must be 

addressed to ensure the continued progress of the Tribe. Funding allocated to these 

areas are wholly unrealistic to existing conditions with in the Tribal framework. 

Housing. Specifically, the drastic reductions to the Home Improvement Program 

(H.I.P.) that are being comptemplated at this time. Due to the changes that have been 

86-834 95-3 
62 

TESTI!IIONY -Jan. 20,1994 ·Apache Tribe ofOklllhomo Su!>commlt!ee on Na11w American Affolrs. Committee on Natural RMOurcH 

implemented by H.U.D., approximately 30% of the Tribal membership with in the three 

main population areas in the Tribal Reservation boundaries cannot qualify under the 

Tribal Indian Housing Authority. These Tribal members must rely on the continued 

assistance provided by the H.I.P. 

Finally, the Anadarko Agency. Realty/Appraisal Department. No continuity of 

personnel and policies. Realty officers are trained at this level with all the learning 

mistakes, that normally are incurred in any education process, and are made at the 

Tribes expense. These are at times dramatic in the result to the Tribe or individual 

member. All mistakes are considered a normal part of the process of B. I.A. personnel 

acquiring job skills; but, the mistake applied to the Tribe or individual is often traumatic. 

The Tribe or Tribal member has no open avenue or means for rectifying B. I.A. mistakes. 

The Agency involvement in the Trust Status application process is not necessary. Most 

decisions or determinations are made in the Regional Field Solicitor's office or the 

Washington, D.C., Solicitor's office. Agency personnel are limited in the scope of tasks 

they are given to complete. The Superintendent should be given the responsibility of 

ensuring that all departments exert the necessary effort for the rapid completion of Trust 

status applications. 

Lease compliance. No adequate effort to insure that property improvements or 

land use covenants are being complied with on Tribal and individual tribal members' 

land. No knowledge or willingness to adequately enforce compliance· with Oil & Gas 

leases. Often the correct names or expiration dates are unknown at the Agency Realty 

level. The Tribe has been informed that the Trust Status application approval process 

that meets a snag.· The snag was identified by a lawyer ("Solicitor''). If all decisions are 

to be made by the B.I.A. legal staff. then the time and effort of the B.f.A. Realty staff are 

being unnecessarily wasted. The Tribe has determined that three farming and grazing 

leases are not being complied with the covenants written into the contracts. Two leases 

within the K.C.A. properties, Lawton, OK, are exceeding the permitted allowable 

number of livestock to graze. One lease at the Anadar1<o "Old Town" properties. was 

approved for a lease renewal without fence improvements and terracing being done on 

the previous lease. We are asked to wor1< with each new administration in a 

cooperative effort that will eventually grant us great rewards. This has not been the 

case nor can we expect it ever to be so. When the Tribe exerts any initiative for solving 

problems within the system we are reminded that we must wor1< within the scope of the 

C.F.R. But, when the B.I.A. personnel operate within the system, they are using 

"approved" policies and procedures ("B.I.A.M.") not the law (C.F.R.). The Tribe 

suggests pre-approval of key personnel appointments and assignments. A process 

established to ensure that key personnel are not given jobs in critical areas for the sake 

of B.I.A. promotion. Removal of unnecessary staff from the trust status application 

process. Create a closer liaison with the B.f.A. lawyers (Solicitors) and the Tribe. A 

Lease Compliance officer who would report directly to the lessor. "Open door," policy to 

work directly with the lessors for determining the scope of each lease and the legal 

alternatives for lease compliance. 

Superintendent. The present "Revolving Chair" policy of appointments to this 

most important position. must be stopped. The only cause for a Superintendent to 

leave the Anadarko Agency post, should be for incompetence. A determination to be 
63 

TESTIMONY · Jan. 20, 1994 ·Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

made by the Tribes being serviced by the Anadarko Agency. The Superintendent has 

no authority or control of department actions. The Superintendent has no effective 

communication with Tribal governments. Since 1987, Clem Cearly, Dennis Pogue, 

Mitchell Choteteau and Evaline Gomez have been given a most important title of 

"Superintendent"; with, an undermined number of "acting" Superintendents being 

appointed during this period. The Tribe, since the administration of Cearly, has 

attempted to place parcels of land into trust status. Each person who has held the 

position of Superintendent could only ask or request immediate action from his staff to 

assist the Tribe in its endeavors. The Tribe was notified directly by the Area Director's 

solicitor of noncompliance of Bingo management and federal marshal's impending 

actions. The Superintendent, Mitchell Chouteau, was not aware of the proceedings and 

could offer no assistance to the Tribe to correct the matter. Overall lack of involvement 

in the placement process by the Tribe. The Superintendent's responsibilities are critical 

and administered without proper Tribal oversight; i.e., the administration of essential 

Tribal resource shares (the percent of federal funding available for essential Tribal 

services). A defined period of appointment. For example, a five (5) year period before 

the Superintendent is eligible for voluntarily leaving his position. Increase the 

Superintendent's authority to act and increase the Superintendent's ability to enforce its 

operational mandates with the Agency personnel. Present B.I.A. policy requires the 

Tribe to initiate all activities at the Agency Superintendent level. If this is to continue, 

then a more enhanced system of communication must be implemented to achieve the 

desired results. 

Contracts. No cooperation granted the Tribe in its attempts to contract essential 

services granted under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(P.L. 93-638). The Tribe has determined that for progress of Tribal goals to be ensured, 

the Tribe must implement its own Judicial and Law and Enforcement programs. To 

accomplish this, the Tribe must contract for its share of the federal funds available and 

are being expended in the Anadarko Agency C.F.R. court system and B. I.A. police unit. 

This Tribal action will be undertaken with contracts available through P.L. 93-638 

funding. The Tribe officially notified Bryan Pogue of this intent, by letter dated 

September 15, 1992. To date, requests for specific information and assistance cited at 

25 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter M, Part 271, Subpart B, Section 271 .16, 271 .1 7, 271 .18, 

have not been received from the Anadarko Agency personnel. The Tribe is dependent 

upon the "good-will" of the Anadarko Agency personnel to comply with the law, again at 

the required liberal interpretation of B. I.A. policies and procedures (B. I .A.M.). The Tribe 

is required to postpone, delay or shelve Tribal planning until Agency personnel have 

adequate time to address the Tribal requests for assistance. The Tribe would suggest 

that the Anadarko Agency make all future activities are in strict compliance with the 

C.F.R. in response to the Tribe's request for information and assistance, concerning 

P.L. 93-638. 
64 

TESTIMONY - Jan. 20, 1994 - Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma wishes to express its appreciation to the 

Honorable Bill Richardson, all participating members and all staff personnel of the 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources, for 

holding this field hearing ; and, for inviting the Apache Business Committee to take part 

in the testimony being given to day. 

This document is being submitted by Martha Banderas, Vice Chairperson, 

Apache Business Committee, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. Ms. Banderas is being 

assisted by Martin Bitseedy. Mr. Bitseedy provides assistance directly to the Apache 

Business Committee, and also serves as the Chairman of the Apache Development 

Authority of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. Mr. Bitseedy is also the Vice Chairman of 

the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association. 
65 

APACHE IUSJNI.SS COMMJTTEE 

HENRY I(QSTZUTA. Chamnan 

MARTHA BANOERAS. V•t•·CI":au""a" 

CA~OL WILDES. S.crllat~- Treasurer 

TELEP><ONE : 40~1247 e11!i 

APACHE IUSIHESS C01111111'U 

GEORGE KOMAAOLEY. COII'IfftftH ~ 

EMILY SAUPITTY. Comm•ne• Member 

BOBBY JAY. Trrbal Admo~sUa!at 

TELEPHONE • 4051247-9493 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Post Olfiu BoJ 1220 

Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 

The Honorable Bill Richardson , Chairman 

Subcommitte On Native American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 

Dear Congressman: 

January 18, 1994 

The following are the representatives of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. to attend the 

Field Hearing, on January 20, 1994, in Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

Martha Banderas 

P.O. Box633 

Apache, OK 73006 

(405) 488-2148 

Martin Bitseedy, Chairman 

Apache Development Authority 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

806 W. Alabama 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

(405) 247-3809 

Martin Bitseedy, Vice Chairman 

Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association 

P.O. Box768 

Anadarko. OK 73005 

(405) 247-9331 

Sincerely, 

..... lJ,~.J;;_, /~~~ 

Martha Banderas, Vice Chairperson 

Apache Business Committee 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 
66 

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Bill. First of all, Diane, you should have 

announced this is your 50th anniversary of the Congress. 

Ms. KELLY. It is. 

Mr. SYNAR. This is an excellent opportunity to advertise that, 

and it shows the staying power that the Congress has had. We are 

very proud of that. Ms. KELLY. Thank you. I would like to invite you to our convention in Denver in November. Mr. SYNAR. I will try to put it on the schedule. I will be busy up 

until then they tell me, I think. Ms. KELLY. I will remind you. 

Mr. SYNAR. Bill, it is always good to have you here and you have 

done such an excellent job with the Muscogee Tribe. Your vision of 

economic development is something that I think is probably second 

to none throughout Oklahoma. 

I would be interested to know what kind of cooperation you have 

gotten out of the state Chamber of Commerce and the local chambers in the counties where the Muscogee Creek Tribe is located. Do 

you all have a partnership that is working together trying to 

strengthen economic development? 

Mr. FIFE. Yes, we are members of the local Chamber there in 

Okmulgee and we have taken it upon ourselves to go out and meet 

with the state chamber staff and their executive director, to become 

part of the local chamber and other chambers within our jurisdictional area. We feel like the only way that we can survive is for 

everyone to be working as a team, and I think we have good relationships with not only the chamber, but the Lions Clubs, the Rotary, the school systems. We have an excellent relationship with 

OSU-Okmulgee and OSU-Stillwater, along with the medical school 

in Tulsa and others in our area. 

Mr. SYNAR. Let me focus in on economic development. If I were 

to pose the question: What is the major obstacle for getting economic development for the tribe? Would it be education levels that 

are lacking, or would it be a need for a financial package that you 

can put together, would it be location, would it be resources? What 

would be some of the obstacles that you all have found? 

Mr. FIFE. Well we have multiple obstacles. First of all, as you 

said, education. We must educate our people in order for them to 

be productive, to be able to fit in some of the jobs that we would 

like to create in our area. Location, I do not feel like it is a problem. I do not think that putting together a financial package is a 

problem. But sometimes the type of business we go into can create 

a problem. You know, in the United States Constitution it says 

that only the United States Congress can regulate commerce with 

Indian tribes. Sometimes we have a little interference from the 

state government wanting to regulate some of our business, and we 

would like for~ne of the recommendations that we would like for 

the Congress to do is exercise its jurisdiction under the commerce 

clause and work with the tribes a little more and make this law 

more clear. 

Mr. SYNAR. Good. 

Chairman Hauser, let me ask you a question. I was a little distressed with your testimony. It seems that you have all but thrown 

up your hands that we are not going to a compact in Oklahoma, 
67 

and even if we do, you claim it is really dual regulation, one for 

Oklahoma and then with the National Gaming Board. Is it over? 

Is the gap just so large between what the tribes want in Oklahoma 

and what Oklahoma is willing to live with? I think Bill and I need 

to know what specific problem exist-where exactly is the gap? 

Mr. HAUSER. The biggest gap we have right now, Mike, in Oklahoma is the state and the Governor. The Governor was put in this 

process in 100-497, it was not the state legislature, it is the Governor. The Governor can be the stumbling block. And the Governor 

we have at this time chooses not to acknowledge there are Indians. 

And he has other priorities. 

Mr. SYNAR. Have there been any discussions? 

Mr. HAUSER. We have had one compact that was placed through 

and there was obstacles placed within that compact that are impractical. Declaratory judgments pertaining to the Johnson Act. 

that is why we are going back to the federal law that-when you 

have a compact in place, the Johnson Act should not pertain and 

the Johnson Act simply means you have a gambling device in an 

area where it is not legal. We have had regulations put out by the 

National Commission, Mr. Hope in his great wisdom done what he 

was supposed to do and that was forestall Class III as long as possible. 

Mr. SYNAR. Who is negotiating on behalf of the state or the Governor? 

Mr. HAUSER. Bob Nance. Mr. SYNAR. And he is out of the Attorney General's office? 

Mr. HAUSER. He is a private attorney that they hired through 

the-when we call him and ask him questions, he would have to 

talk to the Governor's counsel, then the Governor's counsel would 

talk to the Governor and then three weeks later we might get an 

answer of no. 

Mr. SYNAR. Let me ask this question. Given what you all have 

requested in the compact, there is nothing inconsistent with the 

other compacts around the country, is it? 

Mr. HAUSER. None whatsoever. 

Mr. SYNAR. It is almost a model taken from other states? 

Mr. HAUSER. It is the same, you know, why reinvent the wheel. 

If it works somewhere else, let us put it in. We have an off-track 

betting compact that the state of Oklahoma has actually written 

that OTB contract. The only problem is they still will not pass it. They keep kicking it back, keep kicking it back. 

We had a clause in there that says "good faith negotiations," 

there has been no good faith out of Oklahoma. We have tried working with the state and any area, it has to be good for everyone in 

the area. Dollars coming in, there is a spinoff, a seven dollar turnover within the communities. It is good for everyone when business 

develops. In our area, employment, we need employment bad. 

Mr. SYNAR. Let me focus in on that. You know, I am sympathetic 

to the problems. We met with you all on a number of occasions in 

Washington and we are a little bit in a Catch 22. We have sent this 

responsibility down to the states, and it would be a little bit improper now for the federal government to try to direct the state 

what to do, but we realize that these things have to come to closure. 
68 

Of the 37 tribes in Oklahoma, how many of them are on the 

verge or presently involved in gaming? 

Mr. HAUSER. There are 32 operations in operation right now. 

Some tribes have multiple operations. The Class III concept, we are 

trying to put together a package now that is a modification just of 

bingo and others. And I personally feel-! do not think in Oklahoma, you are going to see full blown casinos as you see in Las 

Vegas, you will not see that. Mr. SYNAR. Let me focus in on that. As Chairman of this effort, 

you have probably better familiarity than anyone with what everybody is doing. You know, one of the fears that I have, and again 

not trying to direct what you are doing, is that we are going to 

have 32 different operations going on and we are going to kill the 

goose that laid the golden egg. We are going to have so many that 

it is not going to be worthwhile for anybody. Is that a fear that the 

tribes have? 

Mr. HAUSER. That is one thing you have got to address in business. All people are not going to be successful. Senator Inouye has 

brought this up, that the government should have a responsibility 

to now allow the tribes to enter into a business or an operation or 

function that they are going to fail. 

The markets are there in Oklahoma and we are keeping most of 

them scaled to our areas. And as far as working with the local government, we painted the courthouse in Ottawa County. I mean we 

work well with the local government. But when it gets somewhere 

above the local government and into the state, then you get into 

this large mass ball, and one time I proposed to the state, back in 

1986 or 1987, I said what would it take for you guys to leave us 

alone? The two gentlemen from the Tax Commission took that totally wrong and what they were preparing to do was not what I intended. [Laughter.] 

I talked to our District Attorney for about an hour about what 

happened in that situation. 

Mr. SYNAR. And they think I have an edge. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAUSER. It has to benefit the state when we bring more. The 

regulations, we are willing to pay for whatever they do on a cost 

basis. That is outlined in the federal law. If they would just-{)ur 

biggest frustration right now is if they would work with us, not the 

state as the population, the people that are in the bottleneck, and 

I will say our bottleneck is Governor Walters. That is the bottleneck right there, is Oklahoma City. 

Mr. SYNAR. Let me turn it over to Bill, thank you very much. 

Thank all of you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I am going to come back to the Indian gaming 

issue because this is very important and this is probably the main 

activity of our Subcommittee and we have held five oversight hearings. But to Chief Fife, we talked earlier in the past panel about 

the self-governance concept. Do you think for economic development this would be positive for the Muscogee Nation, a permanent 

self-governance compact? You also mentioned-maybe I can wrap 

two questions into on~the specific concerns in your tribe over the 

health care, the three percent on infant mortality and diabetes. 

Educate me. Are there high incidents of these two maladies in the 

Muscogee Tribe? 
69 

Mr. FIFE. Yes, there are, very high. I do not know what the exact 

percentages are, but I can say that we probably lead-the Indian 

people lead the state in diabetes, in the occurrence of diabetes. Infant mortality, it is very high rates there. 

But what I was alluding to is that three percent does not seem 

like very much, but when you have a small budget and you get 

very-you heard testimony earlier about the gross under-funding 

that we receive here in Oklahoma compared to other areas of the 

United States for Indian health care or Bureau of Indian Affairs 

funding. Then this really restricts what we can do. We work on a 

shoestring. The monies that we receive, the monies that we generate through gaming, primarily go back to supplement the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service programs, and I 

would say that we match those programs almost dollar-for-dollar in 

the services that we provide. Mr. RICHARDSON. On the self-governance issue, is that the direction you think we should go? 

Mr. FIFE. Well we are under a self-governance compact today. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. But making it permanent for you? 

Mr. FIFE. I feel like it would be good for us to have a permanent 

self-governance opportunity under that law. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me go to you and to Chairman Hauser on 

the gaming issue. And I want the audience to know what our position in the House has been, at least the Subcommittee. And let me 

also mention that this Subcommittee works very hand-in-hand 

with the minority, and Congressman Craig Thomas of Wyoming is 

not here, but his counsel, counsel Houghton is here. It has been our 

view, at least my view, that the Inouye process is a good one, 

where we are looking at ways to resolve the lack of clarification 

and the lack of specificity perhaps in the Indian Gaming Act. But I as a Chair in the House have chosen not to participate in 

it. We have a different process in the House. We have had five 

oversight hearings. I am not sure that the Act needs changing. I 

am very, very concerned about any further infringements on Indian 

sovereignty. Now that is my position and I am concerned, obviously 

too, when you get testimony from-! think it was 49 out of the 50 

Governors that wanted us to ditch the entire Indian Gaming Act 

and basically have total state control of Class III and other issues. 

So I am concerned I guess on the other side that if we enter into 

a process of negotiation that perhaps we are dissipating the gains 

that we have already made on Indian gaming. But obviously in 

Oklahoma, there is a problem. 

Chairman Hauser, you stated it very eloquently, a lot better than 

without your prepared testimony. And I am wondering, and maybe 

Mike, with his intensive solution expertise, how do we deal with 

your problem here? As I understand what you are telling me, if 

there is Class III in Oklahoma, that this would be a very positive 

economic development boon for you, but that the compact that you 

are trying to negotiate with the state has not resulted in anything, 

that it is basically-as Mike might have said, it is going nowhere. What do we do? Do we have to clarify the Act to make it happen 

for you? Are there any other ways that we can resolve your problem? 
70 

Mr. HAUSER. With clarification of the Act or clarifying partially 

the regulations. See we had regulations written off of the law that 

do not comprehend or do not follow the law. And what is being proposed now is a regulatory scheme of a two-tiered basis of the actual 

National Chairman and a regulatory group down here that will 

help as T&TA to bring people up to complying with the law. 

The compact we have in Oklahoma was for VLTs, it is a video 

lottery terminal. That is a random generator like you select lottery 

tickets for powerball. With the entanglements within the law and 

then the Cavazone decision being laid out, that kind of throws everyone up and stops. We had to go to court to get a declaratory 

judgment that would hold the state harmless from violating any of 

the laws. The compact was just dead. 

One was negotiated, one and one only. Signed off on but went no- where. The other compacts have been backlogged. Governor 

Billman had my first intent to compact and it has been just forestalled, forestalled, forestalled, wait until the federal law is passed. 

And if the states receive some guidance somewhere that this is 

something that will benefit everyone-again, we are-they have 

chose to ignore us in Oklahoma and I do not think Class III gambling is right for every part of the state. There are areas where 

Class III gaming is not the type of gaming that people in the gen-. eral populous want. In the market areas that it is, it is a boon to 

the area. It will help economically bring the monies in, bring people 

from out of state. We bring people from out of state every day, 

every day coming into our facilities from out of state. The law being clarified or amended to clarify some of the gray 

areas and what the position of the National Chairman is. We have 

almost a dictator up there at this time. We have nothing up there 

at this time. We have a lame duck and a person with a two-year 

extension on their-two years left on their term. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chairman Hauser, next time you are in Washington, come by and see me because I think, while I did say we are 

looking at the Inouye process very positively, we are reserving 

judgment and I have not fully talked to Mike about what he thinks 

we ought to do with the Act itself. Maybe some clarifications may 

be in order, state-specific or-but I am fully reserving judgment. 

You are completing the process in February? 

Mr. HAUSER. That is what we have been--

Mr. RICHARDSON. But I need to educate myself more because you 

have got such-you have 37 tribes in Oklahoma, and what you 

have is no Class III anywhere, is that correct? 

Mr. HAUSER. That is correct. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. So there has not been one successful compact. 

Mr. HAUSER. There is a compact in place but it has never functioned. Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. Mike, maybe we can talk about this fur- ther, but I would like, perhaps if you come next time, the weather 

permits us ever to go back, to discuss this further . .Mr. SYNAR. Thank you all. This has been very helpful and we appreciate it and we look forward to further dialogue. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We will call the third panel; the Honorable 

Elmer Manatowa, Chief of the Sac and Fox Nation; Mr. Leonard 

Harjo, Tribal Planner, Seminole Nation; Ms. Carmelita Skeeter, Di-
71 

rector, Indian Health Care Resource Center and Mr. Mathew 

Kauley, Director, Association of American Indian Physicians accompanied by Mr. Thomas McGaeze, Treasurer of the Seminole Nation. I want to welcome all of you--

Mr. SYNAR. Before we do that, if I could make one more introduction. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. SYNAR. We have the entire Cherokee Council that took the 

whole day off to be here. If they would stand, I would like to thank 

them for all being here, the Council of the Cherokee Tribe. [Applause.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Before I turn to Elmer Manatowa, let me mention that with me-you know, Congressman Synar and I chair 

these hearings and we work very hard, but we have some very 

dedicated and capable staff with us. I already mentioned Rich 

Houghton, who is the minority counsel, who is with us. Marie Howard, who is also on the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, 

she handles many of the issues that we are dealing with today. 

And Tadd Johnson, the Chief of Staff of the Native American Affairs Committee. And Mike, is there anybody else we should recognize? 

Mr. SYNAR. My whole staff is here, but you all know them, so we 

will not go through that. Let us get on with this panel. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay, Chief Manatowa. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. ELMER MANATOWA, PRINCIPAL 

CHIEF, SAC AND FOX NATION, STROUD, OK; LEONARD 

HARJO, TRIBAL PLANNER, SEMINOLE NATION, WEOWOKA, 

OK; CARMELITA SKEETER, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH 

CARE RESOURCE CENTER, TULSA, OK; AND, MATTHEW 

KAULEY, DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN 

PHYSICIANS, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELMER MANATOWA 

Mr. MANATOWA. Good morning. It is my pleasure to be here and 

I am glad to also welcome both of you here. Mike, back to his home 

state. I was not scheduled, as you can see, by the panel information 

earlier, to be here this morning. I was to go to Washington to the 

big tepee, or the big tepee in Washington. But the power outages 

and airline delays presented a problem, so I am very happy to 

make the switch to be here this morning. And I am glad, Mr. Richardson, that you recognized Tadd at least. Tadd and I have known 

each other for a long period of time and I try to visit with him 

about every time I come to Washington, he is very, very helpful to 

us. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Did he tell you to say that? 

Mr. MANATOWA. Yes, he did. [Laughter.] 

I will present a summary this morning of our testimony. We 

have the written statements that will go into the record, and of 

course I would request-we have some additional information that 

we would like to put into the record to further expand on the 

things that we have. So I understand the record will be open--

Mr. RICHARDSON. Without objection, we will insert it in the 

record. 
72 

Mr. MANATOWA. All right, I appreciate that very much. 

So I will summarize just briefly on some areas as we go through 

here today. I want to recognize also a lady that I have with me this 

morning, Suzanne Battese, who is the Assistant Director of our 

Health Unit. Suzanne has helped us and I would like to offer, if 

we have the time, for her to say a few things. This is my expert 

in the health area. I will summarize briefly in the area of self-governance and of 

course, we are a self-governance tribe since we are entering into 

our third year of self-governance with the BIA this year. We were 

the first tribe in the nation to enter into a self-governance project 

with Indian Health Service. 

In addition, this past year, we have entered into a prototype selfgovernance project along with eight northern Pueblo tribes with 

the Department of Agriculture. This is a prototype project of selfgovernance and it is the only one in the nation. So we are taking 

self-governance step by step further. 

Hopefully in the future, as you have heard here this morning, we 

can expand self ~overnance to all agencies in the United States 

that have monies that deal with Indians. It is our feeling that it 

should be. Of course we would ask you to provide full support for the passage of the permanent legislation for self-governance. We are asking-which will ensure the Congressional language is supportive of 

a tribally-oriented negotiated rulemaking process. Tribal stable 

base budgets for self-governance tribes are needed to strengthen 

tribal government operations. 

Earlier this morning, I think you heard Governor Nuckolls state 

his wish to stabilize the government so we can plan from year to 

year on what we are going to do. 

I urge the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to make a selection of the Director of the Office of Self-Governance and that the 

individual selected is knowledgeable of the department, administrative and tribal affairs wise. 

As has happened to Indians, we seem to be the last to receive, 

like our Assistant Secretary, Ada Deer, one of the last departments 

to get a full appointment, and I am afraid we are going to come 

around to the selection of the self-governance office director the 

same way. We will have interims, interims and interims. But let 

us please make a selection very quickly. 

The gaming recommendations, you have heard several things 

here today. We want to eliminate state involvement in gaming 

compacts or establish effective policies and procedures to ensure 

good faith dialogue between states and tribal governments. I see 

the light is coming on, so I am going to have to go a little further 

and faster. In the area of economic development, I do not think the states 

or the federal government has really given us the support needed 

to validate the economic impact of Indian tribes within their respective states. I and several other tribal leaders, along with the 

Oklahoma State Department of Commerce and through your office, 

Congressman, with Tadd, is working on some amendments to the 

Tax Status Act of 1982. Those are all prepared, it has been approved by National Congress and we will be working very hard to 
73 

make sure that those things are passed through that will enable 

tribal governments to assist or take advantage of the tax-exempt 

bonding which will assist again the tribal economics packages within the state. 

Trust fund management. Congress needs to direct the BIA to be 

consistent in the application of policies of investment for tribal 

trust funds as well as individual trusts. 

Congress needs to direct the BIA to provide tribes more influence 

over how their funds are invested and allow for tribal input on the 

specific investment of funds. 

And at this point, I see the red one is on, so I would hope that 

we would be able to have our Director say a little bit more. But 

in health care reform, we would like the inclusion of the self-governance tribes in any future health care reform planning sessions. Just as you have heard with the recent announcement of combining the two BIA area offices, the consultation process many times 

is by letter telling us it has been done. And we think that is going 

to happen again with health care reform. We would like to have 

greater consideration to the every day operations of Native American medical care facilities, provide a clear understanding of the 

self-governance tribes/nations relationship with Indian Health and 

the state alliances. Irregardless of what financial formula is developed, please allow 

self-governing tribes and nations, as well as other Native American 

Indian nations to take active part in the development of any formula that would affect them. 

I see my time is out. I would like to go further, but--

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chief, we will allow perhaps in the questions, 

your counsel to say a few words, but we have to move on. I will 

ask if we can, to please stay to the five minutes. Mr. Harjo. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Manatowa follows:] 
74 

'l'ES"l'li'IONY OF TIJI!: SAC AND T'OX NA'l'ION 

FOR 'I'll!!: n . S. JIOUsr,; 01' REPRI~SF.NTA"l'IVES 

SlJnCOHM:I'l"J'EE 011 111\'l':JVF. 1\tfl~RICl\N AFf'AIRfi T•'OR 

'l'IJI~ COUtU 'l" ri~J·: ON NA'J'IJIU\f, IU':SOURC:t,:S 

I•' 'J EJ,J) llt-:1\H] 11<1 

Clll~HOJ(J~I~ Nl\"1' '1 ON 'l'H rIll\ I, C0t1l?l,f'X 

;JANUARY 20. 'I 9'J'I 

3\JP.PJ.T~,.ft-:n~·l\.t . :;11BF.•1• 

The fo1l owinv rerrP.!ientativcs wilt he'! r•ruv.idjufJ t.IJ"<l l n.nd w•·itl.en te!Jlirnony at 

the UeaL·iny on b~laal f u[ t.l1•.! Soc and F'ox Nation. 

Elme r t1anatowa 

Princi pal Chief 

Sa c and Fox Nat.in11 

Route 2, Box 246 

St<oud, OK 7 4079 

(918) 968-35 26 

Suzanne Bat.tcs~ 

l)t"put.y l!Nil t.il IH~ ~.: tor 

Hac a ud Fox Nat.jq)l 

l~out c :.!, f\ox 241) 

!Hrowi, 01\ 74079 

( 918) %8-3526 

SELF-GOVERNANCE RIO:<=OHtU>;Nlll\ •r:r 011 S 

-Provide full Committee suppoL· t f,n-. the passage o£ li.R. 3508 to bring 

permane ncy to the Setf-Govetn~nce Oemonstraliorl Projec t. 

-Insure the Congressional language f:or H.R. 3500 is !i\tl)Portive of a tt:ibally 

orient ed negotiated rule-making process. 

-Tribal stable bas e budgets f.or Self-Governance Tl' ibes at·e needed to 

strengthen Tribal Government operations . 

-Support s upplement al fundiny requests to covet· th ~ All\. de[icit in contrac t 

support funds to Jndiao tribes for Jndlrec l Cost~ . 

-Urge tl1e Assistant Secre tary - Tlldiarl AffaiLe to n1ake a selection aC tile Direct. OL" for l:h('l Off: ice nf !ltili. -G ovc:n.nancc; and, lbat: t h e jndiviclual selected 

is knowledgeable of Departtnettlal, adrninistralive a11ct tril>al affairs . 

GAMING RECOHHI?.NI>I\'r:l ONS 

-Eliminate State involvement in TJ' i.h al Gaming Compa c·ts o1· t?-s tahlish effective 

polici e s and procechu:es to ensut· c:a ·a goo d faith c.linlO<JtlC Lctween States ilnd 

Tribal Governments t.o conduct u~guliati ns. 

-Development of an appeul s t•L'uCI~S!; f. o L lntliau tribe ~": ln J~~~ event·. St.atee fail 

to negot i ate with 'I'ribes i 11 qc>r")d fait·. h. 
75 

ECONOMIC DEVEJ.OPMEN"l" IIJ::GOtllfEfUll\~"ION:; 

-Federal Gove l:"nment. supp,Ht i~ needed to validate lhe economic impact of 

Indi an tribes within their ~:espective S lates. Ptnthenuore, to assist tribes 

in developing a better dialoguP. Hit.h f>t;~tt:: yovernmentz to pt-ornote Tribal 

business develo~~ltleJlt . 

-Addr es~ th e Luilt ·-.i.n ine•,Lu.ities in t.h<~ alJi ljL.ic ::~ of tribez to compele wi th 

neighboring non- InJian j11rizdicti un!J. 

-Begin the procezs o( ove r comi ng hi!.>lOJ: .ical har riet~ cn;:-alE:d and sus tained by 

failed and flawed (ed eral polici e:'; an<.l practice~ of tbt:o past t wo hundred 

years . 

TRUST FUND Hl\.NJ\.GEHEN"J.• UI!:COf.tH£NUJ\•r1 ONS 

-The Congress needs to direct tlu? Blli. to be consistent in its application of 

polici cD fat· the inveDtment o[ Tribi:tl Tnu t Fund~ as well as rndiv:idual Trust 

Funds .accounts. 

-The Con gress ueeds to d irc<": t the flll\ to I>l: ovidP. lt i bes mo r t: i nfluence o v e r 

how thei r funds an:- .iJJve:-:tcd and t=~ )l w f or t t ia l inp u t o n !.h e s p ec ific 

investment of the fund~~. 

HEJ\LTH CARE HEFORM HECOHHENJ>J\TJOU:; 

-Inclusion of S e l f-Gover n anl'::e tribes ln any fuluLt;o ll e<J )th Ca r e Reform 

planning ses~ions . 

-Give gr ea t er con:::;lderation to Ute every(L1.y opr ralj•ms of ~ Nat. iVE! 1\m e~:ic all 

medical ca r e fa c i lity. Un cl <.. r~; l:und h o w W t! p 1·ovide •:a l. t.: . 

-Pt·ovide a clearer unde1 ~• Jndiug <.1f l it e f.ie l ( - (;ovt![lliJt ') Lrihe!;/ u ations 

relationship with Tndjan ll eal t.h ~>ei·vi i'P <.w•J 5tat.P 1\llian ct.-~;. 

- Irregard l ess of 1-1hal f illi:HII; ial fo nnuL1 is deve l oped , t-d f!;IBe a ll ow 8e lfGovet·ning tJ·ib•:-~:/ll;J t. io !.~ , a::; ~.o1e l a:-~, ull o ther Native /\merican 

tribes/nations to t alte <til ilcl.ive pat· t i u dP.:ve l opaue u t Clf ~ny formula that. 

would ef f ect tllelll. 
76 

HHIT'l'EN 'l'ESTIHONY OF ELMER HANA'l'OH'A 

PRINCIPAL CUJEI'" 

SA<; A.Nl> POX NATION 

OEFORE 

THE U.S IIOUSF. OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOHHIT'rl7.E ON NATIVE 1\.HERICI\N AFFAIRS OF 

TilE COHHITTEI!! ON NA'J'URJ\J, UF.SOURCES 

FIEI.n IIEl\RING 

AT 

TilE CIIEHOKEE NA'l'ION "l'RIBl\1, COHPI.F.X . 

'1'1\IIJ.EQUAU, OKI.l\IIOHl\ 

.'JAfffJARY 20, 1994 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you fo r this opportunity l.o present testimony 

on behalf of the Sa c and Fo x Nation. I would also like to express 

my appreciatl.on t.o Cong~: essman Mike Synar for h i s efforts to 

provide a forum f<n the Oklahoma tt·ibes; and, to Chief Wi.lma 

Mankiller of tl1e Cherokee Nation for hosting today's Hearing. 

I am Elmer Manatowa, Principal Chief of the Sac and Fox Nation and 

assisting me today is Ms. Jo Bu'rtrum, Health Director. The Sac 

and Fox Nation appreciates the expressed interest by the House 

Subcommittee on Native Amedcan Affain; for holding this hearing to 

elicit information on the Self-Governance Demonstration Project, 

trust fund management, gaming, economic development and health care 

reform. 

SELF-GOVF.RNl\NCF. 

The Tribal Self-Govet·nance Demonstration Project, Ot"iginally 

authorized in P . L . 100-472, Title ITI of the Indian SelfDetermination Act: Amendments of l9BB, allows Tribal Governments to 

negotiate the transf er of pJ:og~ams, services, functions and 

activities from the Fede~:al but·eaucracy tb~:ough Compacts of SelfGovernance and Annual funding Agreements. Tribal Councils set priorities on allocation of these financial resour ces and manage 

their affairs with a minimum of Fede~:al involvement. These 

management pr inci pl es and pt·ocesses are empowering our Tribal 

Governments to be dit·ectly t·esponsible and acc:ountable to set-vice 

delive~:y and developme nt a<,·tivilies; dramatically reduces the time, 

paper·work and expense by the Federal bureaucr·ad es set·ving Indian 

CountJ:y; aud, offers real potential for improving the governmentto-government relationships between fndian Tribes and the United 

States. 

Partic ipa tion in Public Law 100-472 has reaffirmed the Sac and Fox 

Nation's status as a sovereign Nation with the authority to 

interact with other entities on a government to government basis. 

Compact status has . provided the Sac and Fnx Nation with the 

recognized legal auiho~:ity to determine the most effective way to 

address issues at the local level. Flexibility in the manner in 

which pt·ograms and bud<Jets are administered and services are 

provic!Pd has been tl1r:! most pn•;it i v e out:cmne nf C:ompact: status. 
77 

RECOMHENJll\.Tl:ONS 

-Provide full Commit I.e"' suppor l f:or the pa!><:aye of II. R . 3508 to 

bring pennanenc y to the Sel f-Cover-na•tce Demon<:tration Pr-oject . 

-Insure l"he Congre!JSional lnn JU <H.Je for JI.R. 3~00 is supportive of 

a tribally or-iented negoti. aled t:ul c-making pt·oc•~ !jS. 

-Tribal stable base budgets for Self-Governance Tribes ore needed 

to str-engthen Tr-ibal Gover-nment operation<:. 

-· Support supplemeutal funding requests to cov er the Bll\ d e ficit in 

contract support fund s to Indian t~ibes for Indirect Costs. 

-Urge the Ass istant SecL"et<lry - I1aiJan Affairs Lo make a selection 

of the Direc t·.<n fo1.· lhe O((: i ce o f Sr, l f-(;ove rnance; and, that the 

indivit.lual se l c:•cl.ec.l "is ltnowl edgt:!a bl e of. Departme ntal, 

admi.nistr·ative ancl tL"ihal i\ffai. 1:s. 

Gl\.HIRG 

The Sac and Fox Nation has been unsuccessful in uegotiating with 

officials of lhe State of Oldalooma in lhe deve lopment ·of a Gaming 

Compact. State involvement in •r r:iba I Gaming Compacts must either 

be eliminated o1.· additional Cong 1: essional dir<,ction with specific 

st e p-by-step pro cedt11:al ins!Tuc tions must Le given to the State for 

enleL"ing into Gaming Compacts or e ls e the Tribe will continue to be 

halted from the fi.11ali zat.ion of any suc h Gaming Compact. In 

essence, the State of Okl a h oma ha s failerl to neg ot iate with the Sac 

and Fox f{ation in good faith while we have attempted full 

cooper ation . The lltlt U.S . ·Ci1:cuit Cou•t of Appeals L"uled on 

Tuesday, January 18, 1994 , lhnL stales cannot be sued by Indian 

tribes seeking to force them to allow gambling casinos on Indian 

l nnds . Stat es ar e a b le to c l aim immunity undeL" the 14th Amendment 

t o the U.S . Con s titution. Und er this court d ec ision, tribes have 

no r ecouL"se to force tat e~. t. o comp l y with the Ind ia n Gaming 

Regulatory l\ct. 

RECOHHEJfJ)l\."rl OilS 

-Eliminate State involvement in Tribal Gaming Compacts or establish 

effective policies and procedure!:; to ensure a good faith dialogue 

between States and T1: ibal Go v e rnme nts l:o conduc t negotiations. 

-Development of an appeals pt: ocess for Indi an tri.bes in the event 

States fail to negotiate with Tr ibes lrl good faith . 

ECONOMIC J>EVEI.OPHEN'r 

'!'he State o f Oklahoma i s a lmos t entirely comprised of tribal 

jurisdictions and boast,; · thP. largest Native populati o n in the 

country; however, t.rne coop era tion between the State and Tribal 

Govenunen ts is yel to be rea I i zed . ~'riba I Governments a •e able to 

provide economi c inc(·Hl l ives becaus e of lheir unique status . •rhe 

S tate has n ot f•tlly realized or simply c hoos es not to participate 

in the :Jo :i.nl l~~ :~ ne(i.t.::; wl l.ich ca u be:! gained by the •=-c onomic 

opportunities for the i>t:lwLiL o f all uf 1.}, , population . ~'he 

Oklahoma Department of ~·oud.s m is lhe on ) y State Department which 

has shown an active interest in the economic impact of p•omoting 

Indian tribes and the Sac and Fox Nation has participated in 

several projects with their DepaL" t rnent. I t is time for the 

remaini ng State Departme nts to become involved in e conomic 

deve lopment e ff orts to initii'lt.•' coopeL· ative effod·:; and !>l"Omote the 

bene(.i.Ls o f doinu hur f'~Js t-~iL h Tr ibal ovP rtHI H~lltB. 
78 

The negative aspects of the Compact stalus have not come from 

within the Sac and Fox Nation but from forces outside. There is a 

great need La create ~ permanent option for tribes to interact with 

the U. S. Government. on this basis . The 11.:;, Senate has enacted S. 

1618, the "Tribal Se lf-Governance ft cl of 1993". The Sac and Fox 

Nation fully supports your iutroduction of a corresponding measure, 

ll.R. 3508. The Self -Gover n~nce Tribes are pioneering through 

negotiated agreements more independent management of financial 

resources and the assumption of t·e!ipon!'i ihi1:ilies and authorities 

associated with tlte transfen:ed f:unds. 

The Tribal Self-Governance De monstt·ation Proje(:l is a fot~runuer to 

the Clinton Adm inist ra tion's "Reinvent. Guve~:nment " init.iative in 

which the policies and goa l s are almost identical. Pr esi dent 

Clinton's Octobet· 26, 1993 Executive Order on " Enhancing the 

Intergovernment al Partnt?rship" in tetlucing reg ulat ory l>ut·dens and 

streamlining the regulations wai v er process for State, Local and 

~rrilJal GovernHH uls dj t.~t:ll y suppot t.s ou L· S<:! l [ -Gove rnauce 

objectives. We truly believe 'l'J: i!Ja! Se l f-GovenJance p 1:ovides 

excellent working ex ampl es of lh c broad Clinton 1\dministrat.ion 

policy goals. 

Unless action is taken soon by the 1\clminislrat i.on, the bi ·· partisan 

Congressional support for Tribal Sel (-Governance as a Tribally 

driven project , the initiative will be abruptly halted by an 

obstructionist bureaucracy. The permanent legislation authorizes 

up to twenty Tribes a year t.o enter Self-Governance as well as a 

negotiated rule-making process directly involving Tribal leadership 

in regulatory decision maki~g. · It is imperative that the 

negotiated rule making process be tribally oriented. The Federal 

bureaucracies unwillingness to a c commodate change will likely 

translate to a sta l e mat e ove~ the most promising Indi an nffairs 

policies since the Indian Sel f - Delennination Act o f 1975. 1'his 

would be most frustrating and disappointing, considering the 

similarities to the expressed Presidential policies. 

In advancing the Self-Gove~nat\ce initiative, we a~e also proposing 

a Tribal base budget concept that would offer stability to Tribal 

management and operations. The Bill has now informed tribes that 

they are now estimated to receive only fifty percent of Triba l 

negotiated Contract Support Funds or indirect costs in FY'94. In 

these instances, Triba l g overnments are bei.ng b lamed for 

bureaucratic ineptness and cLitjcized f or finally begint•ing to 

recover tl1eir true ind i re c t cost~:;. Inflation udju~tments are 

J:arely a considerati.on fot· T~ib e,; , 'a ltl.oug !J the Federal Agencies 

annually receive this most basic provisi(lD. 

The Office of lf-Gove~nan ce will soon lose a valued individua l, 

Mr. Wi II iam Lavell, Di re cto~, as h e wi II be re t .i riny al. lhe end of 

this month. Th e Tribes have been awa r e of h is pending J:et.i1:ement 

for several months and Ms. nda Deer, Assis tant Secretary - Indian 

Affairs ha s been requested l o take action for his eventual 

replacement. However, to d a t e, a candidate has nol b een selected. 

It i s criti c al that the individual se lected [o~ lhis office has the 

knowledge, skills and abililico; to lend s trong administrative 

experience to the Oirecln1: ' s posi t.ion, hnve n so lid un<hn·standing 

of the U.S. Deparl.rn~nt of the Int. .. rior, bul: ju::;t as important, i:; 

the need to have a strong line o[ communication and undeTstandi.ng 

of 'I't·ibal Gov· rmne-nts part i c ipat iJHJ in Ib is 'J'rihully driven 

initiative. 
79 

The Ind ian Tribal Governmental Tax Status Act of 1982 needs to be 

amend ed in o rde r to provide that tribes and tribal subdivisions may 

issue tax-exempt bonds under the same rules that apply to states 

and their political subdivisions. Th e only additional restrictions 

that would apply to tribes and tribal subdivisions shou ld be that 

(a) the facilities fiuance<l by locat e d within or in close proximity 

to the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservati on, and (b) with 

re spect to certain private activity bonds issued by a tribe Ol." 

tribal s ubdivisions, a n Indian OHil eics hip o1c Indian e mpl oyme nt t est 

must be met. Amendments need lo replace the current t·estrictions 

on the issuance of tax-exempt bo'11ds by tribes and tribal 

subdivisions with a provision that suc h b onds are to be issued 

under the same restrictions that apply to states and their 

political subdivisions. Amendments s hould also exempt bonds i ssued 

by tribes or ITiba l subdivisions from the prohibition against taxexempt bonds being guaranteed by the Federal Government (with an 

exception for so-called "FDI C bonds"). this would en·able the 

tribes to combine the benefits of t his bill with those of the 

Indian Finance Act loan guaranty program (25 U.S.C. 1498, et seq.). 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 19 93 contains ce rtain tax 

incentive provisions that in effect set the foundation of the 

Administrat ion's program for developme11t assistance to 

economically-disti:<~ssed communiti es, including Indian Country. The 

tax incentives are part of the package referred to as the 

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Co~nu nities p1:ovisions. 

The President's Community Enterprise Board presents a rare 

opportunity to devel op a coo rdinated effort to achieve measurable 

economic progress in Indian Count y . Il is an opportunity to gain 

Presidential support f.or an Indi an economic agenda that has been 

developed by Tudi an peopl e . 

RECOHHENIJn "I' I ON:J 

- Federal Gove rnment support .is needed to validate the economic 

impa ct of Indian t~:ibes \vi thin their r espec tive States. 

Furthermore, to assist tribes in developing a bett e r dialogue with 

State governments to promote Tribal business development. 

-Address the built-i u inequities in the abiliti es of tribes to 

compete with neighboring non-Indian jurisdictions. 

-Begi n the process of overcomi ng histor-ical barriers created and 

sustained by failed and f.laHed federal polici es and practices of 

the past two hundr ed y ea rs. 

TRUS'l' PUNJJ Ml\NnGJi:HEN.'I' 

When it comes to Lhe •rrust Fund Management, lhe only thing the BIA 

ha s Leen able t o prove i s its years of inability to n\anage I11dian 

trust funds. Pa st BIA iuveslmenl: policies and practices have 

resulted in a lack of realization of maximum i.nvestm.,nt and return 

opportunities. Tribal dollars h a v e nut bee utilized in a manner 

consistent with the T1ibe ' s desire for maximum gain and required 

safety. It appears as though Tribal funds are only invested to the 

degree in which the l3IA's fiduciat· y responsibility is to be 

maintained at a minimal stilt us. Heamvhile, our fun<Js have been 

invested Lor the l3IA i'n 39o or 4% en 's, while the Sac and Fox Nation 

has been able to prove thut we can guide inv estment fun ds towards 

a l 0°o nt: l1i (_J}tel. t·a tP o( r.-.Lill"Il. 
80 

The BIA is able to achieve a greater r et urn on individual's 

accounts than they are ab l e t o obtain [ or Tribal Trust Fund 

accounts. Certainly, there is a u e ed for consistency in the 

management and investment sy s tems of lhese monies. Tribes s hould 

be allowed t o provid e a gr eater influence ov e r how funds are 

inv es t ed, while working with the BIA to insure the investments are 

sti ll secured to protect the Governmen t' s i nter e s t in maintain i ng 

the trust responsibility to the Tribes for ll•eir Tr ust Funds. 

RECOMHEHDJ\'l'IONS 

-The Congress ne e ds La di rcc t the RIA to be consisten t in its 

application of policies f or til e invest1ne11t of T~i ba l Trust Fun ds as 

well as Ind ividual Tr11st Fund s a cc ounts. 

-The Congress ne ecls to dit· ec t the iliA to pt· u v i de tribes more 

influence over bow thej_r fu1H.ls are .inv en ted and allot-~ for tt· ia l 

input o n the specific i nv es tme nt o f the fund !..:i . 
81 

HEAI,TJI CARE REFORM 

Health Care Reform as it relates to the Native American 

Tribes/nations, and especially the Self-governance tribes, leaves 

room for some concertls. 

The PROPOSED Health Security /let indicates that the health 

programs that are mentioned in this /\CT wi 11 be provided by 

Indian Health Services. However, just a few days ago we received 

information from Dr. H~rry, Director, Indian Health Services 

Oklahoma Area Office in which he has indicated that 2,051.7 FullTime employee hours will be cut in Fiscal Year 1994, this amounts 

to a reduction in staff force of ~pproximately 84 e.mployees. It 

is our understanding that this reduction may affect direct 

medical care services in some Indian Health facilities across the 

Oklahoma area. Please, understand that we in Oklahoma are not the 

only area to have reductions in force, this is Indian Health 

Services cuts nation wide. 

Please, help us to understand how we are to become involved with 

this Health Care Reform when the very services that we depend on 

today are being cut. Is this· effective or efficient? We think 

not! 

We have a problem with the enrollment for benefits which is 

covered in Section 8302 in the President's Health Security Act. 

Why are Native Americans who already receive health benefits and 

are enrolled in their respective tribes/nations be required to 

enroll again. The way we understand this section is that unless a 

Native American ENROl.LS listing an I/T/U (Indian/Tribal/Urban 

facility) as a primary care provider, then IHS and/or tribal 

facilities will not be responsible for payments of medical care. 

The failure to clea~ly explain this section, could and will 

result in undo financial hardship for the tribal members 

themselves and provides another wedge of distrust between tribal 

members and the very system that is trying to ln·ing about Health 

Care Reform. 

This brings about another concern. Every state will have a state 

Health Care Alliance, this. Alliance will then be the over-sight 

agency for the distribution of all medical care payments. I.H.S. 

is to be a separate alliance, howevet:, the compacting 

tribes/nations will have to decide if they want to remain under 

the I.H.S. umbrella or possibly join the State Alliances. Since 

many states have had State Alliance in effect in one manner or 

another, this leaves the compacting tribes in a very precat·ious 

state. There is no smooth flow of information regat·ding this 

concept. Oklahoma, fot· example, began with a Governor's Health 

Care Task Force and has now graduated to being a Health Care 

Alliance. It seems t~at it may very well be every tribe/nation for 

itself. 
82 

Section 8303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS discusses the 

dollar amounts needed to carry this out. What was the formula 

used to determine these amounts? How much input has the 

compacting tri~es/nations l1ad in regards to this formula? As far 

as I have determined there has been I itt 1 e input ~:egarding the 

fo~:mula. 

Section 8310.Infrastructure. This section deals with const~:uction 

and 1:enovation of medical facilities. This section deals only 

with Indian Health Service, what about the tribal and/or 

compacting medical facilities . We too, p1:ovide much needed 

medical care, and we like most I .li.S. facilities a1:e -cramped, 

out-dated and in genet·ai, n o t p1:actical to opet·a tr,, and yet we 

do . Because we at·e compa c ting will we be over-looked or denied 

additional monies. WhaL is going to be the criteria for this 

endeavor, whe1:e will it b e gin and whr,n ? Within this Section , is 

also provides fo1: II!S t o h a v e a ~:evolving loan prog~:am, how will 

this be man aged? 

Section 8311. F inancing. This section p~:ovides for the 

"establishment of a comprehensi ve benefit package fund. This fund 

is to be administ ered by ''the h ea lth prog1:am of the Indian Health 

Service" . How does this effect the compa c ting tribes/nations? 

Presently, there are at least seven (7) proposed Bills before the 

U.S. Congress that addresses Hea lth Care Reform in some manner. 

However, little con s ideration has been afforded to the SelfGove~:ning Tribes/ Nati ons, at this time we are ~:equesting that 

the Self-Gove~:ning Tribes/Nations be given the opportunity to 

participate at a highe1: l evel than cur1:ently exists. 

RECOMMENDl\TJONs: 

-Inclusion of 5elf:-Gov e n1il1H": E' tribes in any future Health Care 

Reform planning sessi o n s. 

-Give greater cn u s.i.ti e...-atj o n t.o the ev eryday operations of an 

Native /\me1:i ca n medj c<-t l care faci lity. UndeL·st. anl-1 h ow w~ provide 

care . 

- P r o v ide a c 1 o a r e r u n d e 1· s t a n d i n g o f l be 

t 1: i be sIn at i (J n e s l. e 1 a l j on s l1 i p t.J j ll1 In cl i a 1\ 

and Stat e AJljances. 

Se](-Goven1ing 

He alth Service 

- Irregardless of what f:inancial fo~:mula is developed, 

please allow Self - Governiug tribes /nations, as well as, all other 

Native Ame~:ican tribes/nations to take an a cti ve part in the 

developemnet of any fo~:mula t h at would effect th e m. 
83 

CT~OSING 

Congres~man Mihe Sy11ar hu.s s tated that "R0cent t·.• <:onorn.i c: indicators 

suggest that 1.994 h•i.ll mea n a stt: onger Amct: ican 8conomy." "We need 

to make sure that this llalional recovery doesn't by - pass any of out: 

Native Amer i can commu n i t ies." He agt: ee with Congressman Synat: 

wholeheat:tedly. The :i,;sues you h ave chosen for this l! eadng speak 

well of your sensitivity to Lh e priorities of the Tt:ibal 

Gov f?rnment.s as theDe ate issues tltat \lltist be addressed both 

nati ona lly and in th e Stat (~ of Okln!J oma. The Fedel:a l Go ven1ment'~ 

performan ce toH.JLcl!; Natj v e l\meLj r.aus o v e r the past centuries has 

indeed b een t'! CJL-•?ginu s . 'l'l, c.! lim ·~ ha B come [oL Tt·ibal Cove J:tnnent z to 

receive their proper re co t]nition, nv e: t·come lbe numet o us obstacles 

that are con s tantly plac N l before u s and r· eturn tu us our rightful 

Governmental authority. 

Chairman Richardson, in c losing and on behal ( of the elected 

officials of the Sac and Fox Nati on, I would like to thank you for 

lhe opport.u ni ty to exprcs~ our viGh'S o n lhes e issues which are 

vital to the Sac and Fox Nation. He r es pectfully reques t to leave 

the t: ecor-d open fo1: u s to submit additional testimony on these 

issues at a later elate. 
84 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD HARJO 

Mr. HARJo. Mr. Chainnan, Congressman Synar, on behalf of 

Principal Chief Jerry Haney of the Seminole Nation, I would like 

to take this opportunity to present our written statement. Thank 

you for giving us the opportunity to present our written statement 

to the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs on issues of concern to the Seminole Nation. 

As you all have heard, many of the areas in which Indian tribes 

are interested in is gaming, health issues--Qne concern briefly with 

regard to health is that if you would-in consideration of how you 

all feel we should fit into the health care system, we would like to 

ask that you not place Indian people in a position of having to 

choose between their rights as U.S. citizens and their rights as Indian people. As stated earlier, with regard to gaming, we would like to ask 

you all to ensure that the tribes in Oklahoma are placed in a legal 

position that allows us to benefit from Class III gaming and other 

areas that are being enjoyed by tribes in other parts of the country. 

One of the things that has not been mentioned this morning that 

we would like to urge Congress to consider passage of is Senate 

Bill 391, which deals with granting Indian tribes equal treatment 

under the Internal Revenue Service Code with respect to the unemployment tax. At the present time, the Seminole Nation is not a 

participant in the state unemployment system, yet we are required 

by law to pay the federal unemployment tax and our employees receive no benefits from the payment of that tax. And we would like 

your consideration in allowing us other options than just simply 

participating in the state system. 

The focus of our written comments-and I would like to highlight 

some of those-deals with the trust fund management issue. We 

would like to commend Congressman Synar and your Committee 

on House Resolution 1846. However, there are some areas that we 

would like you to consider amending prior to passage. 

As some of you may know, and I think Congressman Synar particularly, who assisted then Congressman Watkins in obtaining the 

trust fund distribution for the Seminole Nation, we have a rather 

large trust fund. In 1991 we received $38 million as a land claim 

in Florida. Since that time, we have enacted several programs that 

benefit our people, and as of the beginning of this year, we still had 

about $38 million in our accounts in Albuquerque. 

In the last couple of years, we have been working with the Bureau on improving management of those funds, and we were rather 

surprised to learn that when we compared the Bureau's perfonnance against the Shearson-Lehman/American Express Intennediate 

Government Bond Index, that in a two year period beginning in the 

second quarter of 1991 and ending in the second quarter of 1993, 

the Bureau had under-performed that index by the tune of about 

$5.1 million. So we have a very strong interest in seeing that trust 

fund management improves and that we be given more of an opportunity to manage those funds. 

The first area of amendment deals with the demonstration plans. 

We are requesting that prior to finalizing any provisions regarding 

demonstration plans, that Congress consider adding provisions that 

clarify the status of the Seminole Nation and other similarly situ-
85 

ated tribes. For example, in 1990, the Distribution Act pertaining 

to the Seminole Nation is a unique law that provides trust fund 

management and it has provisions in that particular law that may 

run into conflict with what you are proposing. In particular, our 

law authorizes Secretarial approval of tribal investment decisions 

under a plan approved by the Secretary. It is similar to the demonstration program concept, but you know, we want to ensure that 

we do not sacrifice in terms of participating in this law, some of 

the things we have already gained specifically from Congress. 

Second, it has been our experience in dealing with the Bureau 

and the trust fund management group, that there are some areas 

that need to be addressed in terms of definitions with respect to 

key terms. Things such as interest, investment income, interest 

rate. In talking to the Bureau and other people and in the investment community, you find different interpretations of what those 

terms mean and we feel that you ought to explicitly define some 

of those areas within the law that is being proposed. 

The third item has to do with the Secretary's fiduciary responsibility. We are very concerned that the current form of the language that is written in the bill might be interpreted as the exclusive definition to federal trust responsibility. And we feel that that 

would be contrary to the current fiduciary standards that have 

been established by federal courts. In particular, we would like to see the language within the law, 

and we have got recommendations in our statement, that the introductory language to one of the subparagraphs, subparagraph (e) be 

clarified so that interpretation cannot be made by someone else 

outside. 

The fourth item has to deal with information and compensation 

for losses. In reviewing the bill, we did not have any idea what you 

meant by Section 102 and we would like to see some clarification 

there if possible. 

One area in addition, I will conclude on this, has to do with mak- ing sure that the tax consequences of investment and interest income on trust funds that are taken out from under the management of BIA retain their tax-exempt status, particularly with regard to distribution to tribal members. 

I would like to thank you again for giving us the opportunity to 

make our comments. Mr. RICHARDSON. Very good testimony, Mr. Harjo, you have been 

very helpful to us as we have developed this legislation. 

Ms. Skeeter. 

[Prepared statement of Seminole Nation follows:] 
86 

STATEMENT OF JERRY G. BANEY, PRINCIPAL CHIEF 

OF THE SEMINOLE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

Before the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

January 20, 1994, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT REGARDING LEGISLATIVE HEEDS 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present a 

written statement to the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs regarding 

issues which are of serious concern to the Seminole Nation of 

Oklahoma. Due to my absence from the state, my representatives at 

the hearing today are Leonard Harjo, Economic Development Director 

of the Seminole Nation, and Thomas McGeisey, Jr., Treasurer of the 

Seminole Nation. Mr. Harjo will give verbal testimony highlighting 

some of the concerns expressed in my written statement. 

At this time the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma is in a 

reorganization process. During the past two years the Nation has 

adopted a Code of Laws which contains titles on a variety of 

topics, including judgment fund programs, courts, evidentiary 

rules, civil procedure, juvenile law, criminal laws, elections and 

finance, including trust fund management. The Nation is currently 

updating other laws, including its economic development law and 

gaming code. 

This tribal legislative activ ity reflects the Nation's current 

goals of strengthening its governmental powers, protecting tribal 

trust assets and the assets of tribal members, pursuing land 

acquisition, and engaging in economic development and gaming 

activities to increase tribal revenues. Consistent with these 

goals, the Seminole Nation's major concerns today are as follows: 

( 1) 

( 2) 

( 3) 

( 4) 

(5) 

Consider amendments to H.R. 1846, the Native American 

Trust Fund Accounting and Management Reform Act,· prior to 

passage; 

Enact Senate Bill 391, which would result in the ability 

of tribes to provide unemployment compensation benefits 

to tribal employees; 

Place Oklahoma tribes in a legal position which allows 

them to enjoy the benefits of Class III gaming enjoyed by 

other tribes; 

Streamline the trust acquisition process to allow more 

timely approvals of trust acquisitions; 

Solve restricted land problems of individual members of 

the Five Tribes through passage of federal legislation 

1 
87 

amending a series of discriminatory federal laws which 

have resulted in the wholesale loss of Five Tribes lands, 

eroding the jurisdictional land base of the Nations; 

(6) Address special health care needs of Indians; and 

(7) Increase tribal court funding. 

A more detailed explanation of these needs are provided 

below. Please be advised that our main focus here is on trust fund 

management, due to time constraints which prevent us from providing 

a more detailed statement regarding other concerns. Although all 

concerns may not be thoroughly presented here, the Seminole Nation 

considers all of the above issues of great importance to the Nation 

and other Oklahoma tribes. 

I. MANAGEMENT OF TRIBAL TRUST LANDS 

A. Introduction 

In 1976 the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and the Florida 

Seminole Tribe were awarded compensation for lands taken by the 

federal government in the early 1830s, in Seminole Nation v. United 

States, Indian Claims Commission Dockets 73 and 151. The Oklahoma 

share, which was approximately $ 11.1 million, increased to 

approximately $ 42.2 million as of May 1, 1991, when distribution 

between the two tribes occurred. Since distribution in 1991, the 

Seminole Nation has spent several million dollars on tribal 

programs. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma had more than $ 38 

million remaining in trust at the beginning of 1994. 

For the past year the Seminole Nation has engaged in an 

educational process based in part on presentations by investment 

firms regarding investment management. By legislation the Nation 

has established the Seminole Natio~ Trust Fund Management Board, 

which is comprised of the Principal Chief, Treasurer, three General 

Council members and two persons with experience in financial 

management. 

The Trust Fund Manageme.nt Board is particularly interested in 

pos sible methods o f improving investment returns while maintaining 

tribal funds in trust. The Board is currently developing an 

investment policy statement for future approval action by the 

General Council. The policy statement will be provided to OTFM and 

eventually may be used by a consultant who directs BIA management 

of Seminole Nation trust funds. This potential plan of action is 

consistent with a 1992 letter from the BIA Office of Trust Fund 

Management, which states that the Seminole Nation may hire outside 

consultants to provide investment directions to OTFM without the 

necessity of an investment plan and without taking funds out of 

trust. 

2 
88 

The Trust Fund Management Board desires improved management of 

Seminole Nation trust funds by the BIA. A calculation based on comparison of the Shearson Lehmann American Exchange Intermediate 

Government Bond Index (hereinafter referred to as SLAE IG Index) 

with the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma judgment fund investment 

returns for a two year time period beginning with the second 

quarter of 1991 through the second quarter of 1993 indicates BIA 

underperformance in the approximate amount of $ 5.1 million. A 

similar calculation of the BIA rate of return for Seminole Nation 

investments from late 1976 or early 1977 through the first quarter 

of 1991 indicates underperformance in the approximate amount of $4 

million. 

Due to the size of its trust fund and estimated lost 

investment income, t .he Seminole Nation has a particularly strong 

interest in federal trust fund management, as well as a strong 

interest in its potential role regarding investment of its trust 

funds. 

The Seminole Nation supports the concept of proposed federal 

legislation introduced by Congressman Mike Synar on April 22, 1993, 

H.R. 1846, entitled the Native American Trust .Fund Accounting and 

Management Reform Act (hereinafter referred to as H.R. 1846), but 

it has several serious concerns regarding the bill. The Seminole 

Nation requests Congress to consi der possible amendments of the 

bill prior to passage. 

B. Suggested Amendments to H.R. 1846 

1. Demonstration Plans 

The proposed federal legislation, H.R. 1846, Sections 203 and 

204, would authorize development of demonstration plans by tribes 

which would "demonstrate a new approach" for the management of 

tribal or individual Indian funds held in trust by the United 

Statutes for such tribe or the members of such tribe. Such a plan 

could include management (including investments) of funds directly 

by the tribe in financial institutions selected by the tribe, 

subject to supervision and oversight by the Secretary. 

The Seminole Nation requests that prior to finalizing the 

provisions relating to demonstration plans, Congress consider 

adding some provision clarifying the status of the Seminole Nation 

and other similarly situated tribes. The 1990 federal Seminole 

Nation judgment fund law is a unique law regarding trust fund 

management which must be taken into account before provisions of 

current proposed federal legislation related to demonstration 

projects is finalized and enacted. 

The Seminole Nation's 1990 federal law authorizes Secretarial 

approval of tribal "investment decisions " under a "plan". It is 

similar to the demonstration plan concept in that it sets similar, 

3 
89 

but not identical, standards for Secretarial r.eview. It is also 

similar to the demonstration plan concept in that it limits 

Secretarial liability for approval of an "investment decision, " 

although the federal Seminole law does not expressly place the same 

type of supervisory requirements on the Secretary as the proposed 

sections dealing with demonstration plan. 1 

The federal Seminole Nation judgment fund law authorized the 

Seminole Nation to submit a usage plan to Congress for approval. 

The usage plan which received Congressional approval is codified in 

Title 18-A, § 109 of the Code of Laws of the Seminole Nation. The 

usage plan authorizes Secretarial approval of an "investment plan" 

which could result in taking funds out of trust. The usage plan 

requires a Secretarial approval decision within sixty days of 

receipt of the investment plan; this is inconsistent with the 

demonstration plan requirements of approval within ninety days. 2 

The Seminole Nation's usage plan requires an annual audit of 

funds managed under an investment plan, with a report to be given 

to the General Council and interested tribal members. The report 

would include financial statements, amount of interest earned from 

each investment and statement of the investments of the fund with 

Public law 101-277, Act of April 30, 1990, ___ Stat. , 

Section 4 provides: " (e) Tribal investment decisions under a plan 

shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary. Approval shall 

be granted within a reasonable time unless the Secretary 

determines, in writing, that the investment would not be reasonable 

or prudent or would otherwise not be in accord with the provisions 

of this section." It further provides: "(f) Neither the United 

States nor the Secretary shall be liable, because of the 

Secretary's approval of an investment decision under this section, 

for any losses in connection with such investment decision." 

Title 18-A, § 109(b) of the Code of Laws of the Seminole 

Nation of Oklahoma provides: "(b) Investment Plan: General. If 

in the future the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma desires to undertake 

investment of some portion or all of the funds, the tribal 

governing body may present an investment plan to the Secretary for 

approval. Approval shall be granted within sixty (60) calendar days 

of receipt of the investment plan unless the Secretary determines, 

in writing, that the plan would not be reasonable or prudent or 

would otherwise not be in accord with the provision of the Act. 

Upon approval of the investment plan by the Secretary, funds to be 

managed under the investment plan are to be transferred to the 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma at a mutually agreed time. Neither the 

United States nor the Secretary shall be liable, because of the 

Secretary's approval of an investment decision under this plan, for 

any losses in connection with such investment decision." 

4 
90 

an appraisal at market value. See Title 18-A, S 109(c) of the Code 

of Laws of the Seminole Nation. 

The provisions of the proposed law regarding demonstration 

projects should be clarified to state its effect on similar but not 

identical provisions in the Seminole Nation judgment fund federal 

legislation and federally approved usage plan (which is not an 

investment plan, but which authorizes development of an investment 

plan). The proposed federal legislation should expressly state 

whether it is intended to be controlling over prior inconsistent 

special federal legislation governing a particular tribe's judgment 

fund management. 

The proposed federal legislation should include provir. ions 

whi ch define the standard of review to be u s ed in determining the 

success of demonstration projects and in determining authorization 

of taking property out of trust. 

2. Definitions 

The proposed bill, H.R. 1846, fails to contain definitions of 

key terms used, or which should be used, in the bill. The 

following terms should be defined in the bill to avoid future 

disputes over interpretation of the legislation: "interest", 

"investment income ", "investment functions", "interest rate", 

"appropriate amount of interest", "investment plan", "investment 

decision", "investment policy statement n, "loss", "principal", 

"protection against substantial loss of princi pal " , "transfer of 

funds", "trust funds," and "type of deposit or investment." 

3. Secretary's Fiduciary Responsibility 

Proposed federal legislati on, H.R. 1846, would statutorily 

define the Secretary's fiduciary duty by establishing required 

c o nduct related to trust fund management. Section 301 of H.R. 1846 

would amend 25 U.S.C. S 162a to add a new sub-section (e), which 

begins with the language "The Secretary shall properly discharge 

the trust responsibilities of the United States under this section 

by ..•• " and then lists numerous fiduciary duties, including 

accounting systems, reconciliations, written policies and 

procedures and adequate staffing. 

In its current form this language might be interpreted as the 

exclusive definition of the federal trust responsibility. This 

wo uld be contrary to current fiduciary standards established by 

caselaw. The fiduciary duty of the United States with respect to 

tribal trust funds includes the obligation to maximize the trust 

income by prudent investment. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians 

of Oklahoma v. United States, 512 F. 2d 1390, 1394 (U.S. Ct. Cl. 

1975) The United States has the burden of proof to justify less 

than a maximum return. ~ 

5 
91 

The proposed introductory language in subparagraph (e) should 

be clarified so that it cannot be interpreted in the future as 

limiting the federal trust responsibility. This could be 

accomplished by changing the first sentence in subparagraph (e) to 

read: "Proper discharge of the Secretary of Interior's trust 

responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the following 

requirements ••. " The following sentence might be added at the end 

of the section: "Nothing herein shall be interpreted as limiting 

the fiduciary duty of the United States with respect to tribal 

trust funds to maximize the trust income by prudent investment." 

4. Information and Compensation for Losses. 

Section 102 of the proposed H.R. 1846 appears to provide only 

marginal relief to tribes by authorizing the Secretary to make 

payments to an Indian tribe in full satisfaction of any claim of 

the tribe for interest on amounts deposited or invested on behalf 

of the tribe before the date of its enactment, if the tribe was not 

paid the appropriate amount of interest on such funds, said 

payments to be in an amount equal to the interest which would have 

been earned if funds of the tribe had been deposited or invested in 

accordance with 25 U.S.C. ~ 162a. 

This provision appears to refer to incorrect division of 

interest payments in various tribal accounts, resulting in losses 

by some tribes prior to the effective date of the act. It does not 

expressly require the Secretary to report losses to the tribes or 

define documentation required to prove losses. Perhaps the intent 

is that when audits of tribal trust funds are completed, tribes 

will discover the losses in the resulting reports. However, this 

is not clear, and should be clarified. 

Although the proposed legislation contains accounting 

requirements in Section 501, there is a question as to whether it 

fully addresses the issue of potential future losses by the BIA. 

The legislation should define the documentation the BIA needs to 

establish the existence of and amount of losses after passage of 

the bill. It should expressly state responsibility of Interior 

Department to inform accountholders of losses. 

Section 102 does not appear to include compensation for loss 

of investment income due to the failure of the BIA to maximize the 

returns by prudent investments. Although this provision does not 

expressly eliminate the ability of tribes to bring legal actions 

against the federal government for breach of trust, it might be 

wise to add the following provision: 

Nothing contained herein shall preclude an Indian tribe from 

filing an action in federal district court or in the United 

States Court of Claims for an accounting, loss of interest and 

loss of investment income based on breach of fiduciary 

responsibilities. 

6 
92 

5. Tax Consequences for Interest and Investment Income 

Earned from Trust Funds Managed Pursuant to Demonstration 

Project or Plan and Withdrawn from Trust. 

Section 207 of the proposed legislation provides that funds 

managed pursuant to a demonstration program and distributions made 

from such funds, will be treated in the same manner as if the funds 

were managed directly by the Secretary for IRS income tax purposes. 

It is suggested that provisions regarding taxation be contained in 

a separate chapter, and provide as follows: 

Interest and investment income from trust funds managed 

pursuant to a demonstration plan or pursuant to a plan 

otherwise authorized by federal law and approved b}' the 

Secretary of Interior, and interest and investment income from 

funds which have been disbursed to a tribe for authorized 

program uses, shall not be subject to Federal, State, or local 

income taxes, nor shall such funds nor their availability be 

considered as income or resources or otherwise utilized as the 

basis for denying or reducing the financial assistance or 

other benefits to which such household or member who would 

otherwise be entitled_under the Social Security Act or, except 

for per capita payments in excess of $2,000, any other Federal 

or federally assisted program. 3 

6 . Audit Requirements 

Although H.R. 1846 does not contain provisions requiring 

completion of the audit of tribal trust funds prior to removal from 

trust, according to House Rep. 102- 499 at 18, fn. 59, a series of 

appropriations laws have prohibited transfer of funds under a 

contract with any third party for the management of tribal trust 

funds until the funds held in trust for such tribe or individual 

have been audited and reconciled and the tribe has been provided 

with an accounting of such funds, and the appropriate committees of 

Congress and the tribes have been consulted about the terms of the 

proposed contract or agreement. H. Rep. 102-499 at 18, fn. 59. The 

firm of Arthur Anderson is currently working on the required audit, 

which may be completed in 1995. 

The proposed legislation should include a provision which 

would afford tribes the option of withdrawing funds from trust 

prior to completion of the audit of tribal trust funds, without 

losing the right to recover any lost income from the BIA. 

II. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR TRIBAL EMPLOYEES 

The Seminole Nation has had no unemployment coverage for its 

This proposed language is similar to language contained in 

Section 8(b) of the federal legislation concerning the Seminole 

Nation. 

7 
93 

employees since 1986, when the State of Oklahoma prohibited it from 

re-entering the state system due to a tax debt to the state. While 

tribal employees have received no benefits, the tribal liability 

for federal unemployment taxes has continued. 

The Seminole Nation is working to correct this problem by 

pursuing state legislation which would allow it to return to the 

state system. However, a better remedy is presented in the form of 

S. 391, which would enable tribes to be treated like state and 

local governments and non-profit entities under the Federal 

Unemployment Tax Act. This would enable tribes to pay into, or "reimburse" the unemployment compensation fund only those amounts 

received by their unemployed workers. The Seminole Nation, as well as the other members of the Inter-tribal Council of the Five 

Civilized Tribes, supports passage of this law, which is badly 

needed by Indian tribes nationwide. (See attached Inter-tribal 

Council Resolution No. 94-08.) 

III. CLASS III GAMING 

The Seminole Nation successfully engages in Class II gaming 

activity. The Nation is interested in pursuing Class III gaming, 

and in 1992 submitted a request to the state for negotiations on a Class III compact, a request which has been virtually ignored. The 

Seminole Nation now finds itself in the same position as other 

Indian tribes in Oklahoma, burdened with case precedent which 

prevents Class III compacting in Oklahoma. A legislative remedy in 

the form of amendments to the Federal Indian Gaming and Regulatory 

Act is needed to correct this problem, as Oklahoma tribes are now at a standstill, watching other tribes nationwide reap the benefits 

of Class III gaming. 

IV. TRUST ACQUISITIONS 

The Seminole Nation wishes to acquire and. place land into 

trust as expeditiously as possible. It ~s the Nation's 

understanding that trust acquisition in Oklahoma can be a long 

process, sometimes taking years. The Nation desires some form of 

remedy which would allow more timely trust acquisitions. 

The Nation is also concerned that federal regulations and 

legislation may be moving in the direction of restricting trust 

acquisitions by the Nation in the Oklahoma City area. This land is 

conunonly believed to be "unassigned lands," because at the turn of 

the century during the allotment period, no tribe had possession of 

the land. In truth, this area was within the original domain of 

the Seminole Nation and Creek Nation following removal to Indian 

Territory in the 1830s. The loss of this land by the Seminole 

Nation due to treaties forced upon the tribes after the civil war il'as inequitable. The federal government may now add insult to 

injury by denying the Seminole Nation its rightful claim to acquire 

trust property in this area in the form of regulations which might 

8 

86-834 95-4 
94 

define the ori g i nal reservation boundaries of Oklahoma tribes as 

they existed at the time of allotment. Such a restriction should 

not be placed on the Seminole Nation. 

V. RESTRICTED LAND PROBLEMS 

The Seminole Nation and the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw and 

Creek Nations) have been working on the development of amendments 

to a series of federal laws, including the Act of August 4, 1947, 

61 Stat. 731, which deal with the rights of individual tribal 

members in matters affecting their restricted Indian lands. These 

laws include provisions which require that heirs be one-half or 

more Indian blood in order for inherited property to retain its 

restricted status. They give state courts jurisdiction over 

approvals of leases and conveyances of restricted lands and over 

probates of estates involving restricted lands. They have resulted 

in the wholesale loss of Indian lands throughout the twentieth 

century, a process which must be halted. It is anticipated that 

the Inter-tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes will submit 

draft legislation amending the unfair laws this spring. (See 

attached Inter-tribal Council Resolution No . 94-03.) 

VII. TRIBAL COURT FUNDING . 

Federal funding assistance is needed for tribal courts. The 

Seminole Nation has not to date amended its constitution to 

expressly authorize the exercise of judicial powers and is 

currently using a Court of Indian Offenses to addre~ its Court 

needs. Funding for a tribal court is a concern which is impeding 

the Nation's progress toward full self-government. 

VII I. HEALTH CARE REFORM 

(STATEMENT BY JAMES FACTOR, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SEMINOLE NATION OF 

OKLAHOMA, AND CHAIRMAN, OKLAHOMA AREA INTER-TRIBAL HEALTH BOARD): 

The Government guaranteed American Indians health care through 

treaties, acknowledged the federal responsibility of elevating the 

health status of American Indians to the highest possible level in 

the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, and now the Health 

Care Reform Act will give the Indian Health Service up to five 

years (1999) to renovate and expand to provide all the services 

guaranteed in the comprehensive benefits package. 

Again the American Indian is at a crossroad, which path or 

choice to follow. Should we stay with Indian Health Service or 

take one of the available health plans? As American Indians, we 

already have the unique right of being guaranteed health care, so 

WHY MUST WE BE FORCED TO MAKE A CHOICE? American Indians must be 

allowed to stay with an improved I.H.S., which is a treaty right, 

AND (not "or") also be able to participate in any other available 

health alliance plans, which is our right as United States 

9 
95 

citizens. 

The per capita expenditures on health care for American 

Indians is less than a third of what is spent on the general U.S. 

population. The division of I.H.S. funding within its twelve Areas even shortchanges the Oklahoma Area on a per capita basis. This 

must be addressed in the proposed changes. 

Restructuring of the I.H.S. gives us an opport unity to reduce 

any administrative waste, but must not affect the ability to 

provide health care service. Consultation with the tribes is 

essential in solving this problem. 

Full consultation with Tribal 

Clinton Administration is necessary, 

plan is to be effective. 

leaders, Congress, and the 

if this health care reform 

CONCLUSION 

The Seminole Nation appreciates the efforts of this 

Subcommittee to address the needs of Indians. The Seminole Nation 

will assist your efforts to. further our common goals in every way 

possible. 

Jerry G. Haney 

Principal Chief 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 
96 

j[' : 

lJ-L.JCI~ Noll iUN JAN 19'94 4~ '1.,!4-11;.1,) 

TilE UITER-TitlBAI. COUlfCll. 

ol tht PJVE CJ\Ill.JZED TRIBES 

Jttolutlon \ium\> .. , r'l' ~4-oa 

8 :56 No.OOl ~ 

t-'HUl: ~ 

WIIE!E.AS, tht ll'lttt-Ttlb~ l C•lt.tncil of th~ Five Cl1•illt~d Trill t r. vp,.~s 111\ t. s ·:o~~ ~ 1: ~(1,0 1) 0 lro4 i. ~r. 

ptoplt thr o~~oullh~ tlnltod St•t~s. ~·d 

W'R'l'Rl'M.>; t'h• Tntar.Trih~l i:ntlnnll nf th"' i1·~ t~i :O ted Trlbfl h~rebu r~o::o:~t iiz&~ th1t .,., ,.,., ' 'l'I""Y''''" ' '' .., ... ' '.&"'", ,.,.,.,: .. ,, J •• \- •, , ,._ ,J..,j .• l l, . ., " fl.. ..... l ...... ,..1 .... ;-o··· -, , ..... . .J •.f ... .. l.-,,,,J, . •• 

WIUlREAS. tht ll'lt• r-Trlb~l Counoil t•i tht FlY~ Clvllt~t•1 Ttlbtt htr•by finds th~ · h1 , tr >~~ 

sho11ld bt rtOOg!'llzt4 'bV lt~~t3ll~w &$ hav~·,g th~ Hm ~ ;.1 •• 1\1! u !-t«lt!- arrd mun iJ>clltlt~ lor 

ltdttAI UTltll\llfO~trntlll IAH l'"•l'a'•'· .md thai :m lt dl~t> ttlb~ ji\Ould bt tHrmtpt IICI!Ti Pll,/rlltt\1 Oi 

suoh lt<ltr•l t•Mts If th•~· o;•t to dtYtle<P tl1elr wn tmc·nwlr.•yrr,mt oompPn$il c~ · s~stmH· f,lr 

UTlfTI'lPIOymtl\1 omp~l'lflt iO!'> ol ttib~l ~m>ploy~•~ · 

WIIZ:lEAe,s ~,1 1•citral ~!f l:;l tlonl O'o\ )- '" '~"'ll l>• k·f(' ':'n~~" "'' H~;. d~J o ll lel;·lH,ni;r,n t,..,nn•+•. 

trlb~ l UllfT!'\PIOytllf'l'lt taH'I'It~~ ~. 

Not•) Tll!REFORE BE IT RESOLVED. that thP !rlttr·ttlt•;l Cc•wr,~ ll o[ tho. fioJe Ci•lillze-d Trll:•fl 

supports pas S-l!J~ o! S 391. 

A~opttd 'o~ til• Inttr-Ttlb~l C(••.mcdl o! tht Fi•,•t Cl,,•ili z~d 'flib~$ m~~tillg .lt F•:0' 111t~~lhud c•dg . 

C».lahorne, ot1 3in1tW~• 1t, !)~ ;; , by " yot" ot ..1.L fCil<, __Q__ AGAiliS'r and 

ASST AIN1Nt3. 

/ 
97 

STATEMENT OF CARMELITA SKEETER 

Ms. SKEETER. Good morning. I met you in Little Rock about a 

year and a half ago, you took me to dinner when we were there, 

about 50 Indians came in to get--

Mr. RICHARDSON. Did I pay or--

Ms. SKEETER. You paid, thank you very much. [Laughter.] 

I am Carmelita Skeeter, I am the Executive Director of the 

Urban Health Program in Tulsa. Tulsa has the second largest Indian population in the United States, LA is number one. 

We have two urban programs in Oklahoma, Tulsa and Oklahoma 

City. Initially we were funded out of Title V, Indian Health Care 

Improvement Act, but in 1985, we went to Congress, asked that 

our money be taken out of Title V, moved over to Indian Health 

Service, line item Hospitals and Clinics, and we became a demonstration project under Indian Health Service. That has proven 

very beneficial for Oklahoma, the two urban clinics in Oklahoma. 

We were able to do that because Oklahoma is a contract health 

care state. 

We have enjoyed the increases; as IHS has got their small increases, we. have received ours. Up until that time, we were fighting with Congress every year to keep our money in because they 

were always writing the urban Indians out of the budget. That is 

not saying that we are home free, we still have a great need. Like 

I said, we have the second largest population of Indians in Tulsa. 

Our comprehensive health program includes two family practitioners, mental health, alcohoVdrug abuse, AIDS funding for testing and counseling. We have a child welfare program and we have 

a WIC program which is contracted with the Cherokee Nation, and 

we have had that since 1979. 

Our program is in dire need of a new facility. Congress gave us 

$325,000 this past session to go towards a new facility and we have 

entered into a federally qualified health center compact with the 

state of Oklahoma for medicare and medicaid. That is increasing 

our reimbursement on our third party. We were told initially from 

Indian Health Service that collecting third party monies would go 

towards your facility and upgrading everything in your facility to 

be JCAH accredited. 

This past funding cycle, Indian Health Service is coming back 

saying, well since we are being cut in our funds, that money now 

needs to go to your base to provide direct services. We have notreceived the facility yet, we have not received the accreditation, so we 

still need the money to go for the first intended purpose and not 

to be taken out to go for basic health care. 

We do support the position that the President has of keeping Indian Health Service separate from the state alliances, because any 

time any Indian funds or any Indian programs come into the 

state-and I do not know that Oklahoma is unique in that areabut any time Indian money comes into the state of Oklahoma, some 

way Indians never receive it. 

With our program, this past year we had our AIDS contract cut 

with the state because of the state tight budget. Last year we had 

another program cut that was for alcohol and drug abuse prevention. These are very high priority needs in the Indian community. 

The state of Oklahoma says they have a budget reduction, so the 
98 

automatically do with the Indian money that should be coming to 

us to help teach AIDS prevention and alcohol and drug abuse prevention. The programs that I had in place were very beneficial to 

the Indian youth in the city of Tulsa. As you know, the alcohol and 

drug abuse rates in Indians is extremely high. I have not received any other justification from the state of Oklahoma other than to say they had a budget cut and this is where 

they were cutting their funds. We have 21 AIDS/HIV patients at 

this time. The youngest is three years of age. So with the reduction 

in funds from the state, the reduction in funds from Indian Health 

Service, we do not know where we are going to get the money to 

continue to take care of these patients. 

So I want to request strongly, if the federal money is coming into 

the state of Oklahoma for Indian programs, I need the federal government to see that the state is actually getting that money out to 

Indian programs. And I am sure Oklahoma is receiving those 

funds. Where they are going, I have no idea, because from everyone 

I talk to, they are not coming down to the Indian urban programs 

or the tribal programs. So I think that is something that we need 

to look into. The BIA has made another recommendation to cut urban programs in Indian child welfare by 10 percent. The program I have 

now is only $46,000 to serve 17,000 Indians and as you know, there 

are more Indians moving to the urban areas all the time. Once 

they get there, then they are faced with the hardships of unemployment, divorce, alcohol, drugs and all of the other variables of living 

in the urban area. We have a court case pending now of the death 

of a child from abuse. So if the BIA continues to cut back, then 

they are totally ignoring the urban population of Indians and I 

know that the tribes have the law behind them and the money is 

to go to them first. But they have to consider the urban population, 

and particularly in Oklahoma. 

I see I have the red light. I have turned in written testimony 

with some more hard data on it. So thank you very much. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. Nice to see you again. 

Mr. Kauley. [Prepared statement of Ms. Skeeter follows:] 
0 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

PRESIDE. NT 

Jim Cameron 

CfltYolfee 

VICE PRESIDENT 

Ken Underwood 

Cherokee 

TREASURER 

Linda Sconyers. CPA 

Cherokee 

SECRETARY 

Ed Pierce 

Citizen BaM Potawatomi 

W~liam Anquoe 

Kiowa!Os.ge 

Mauctie Bazille 

Cherokee 

Norman Crowe 

Cherokee 

Go'diePhiU" ' 

Comanch~~t 

Jimmy Reeder 

Ctler04;~ 

Ben Shoemake 

Ch11rokee 

Bat Shtsnalona Ill, MD 

CrHk!OtoeiP•wn~~te 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

C..rmetita SkHter 

Citizen &nd Potawatomi 

99 

INDIAN HEALTH CARE RESOURCE CENTER OF TULSA, INC. 9,5 S. Cincinnati, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119-2000 

(918) 582-7225. FAX (918) 582-6405 

W R I T T E N T E S T I M 0 N Y 

HOUSE INTERIOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

PRESENTED BY 

CARMELITA SKEETER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

INDIAN HEALTH CARE RESOURCE CENTER OF TULSA, INCORPORATED 

TULSA, OKLAHOMA 

On Behalf of 

INDIAN HEALTH CARE RESOURCE CENTER OF TULSA, INCORPORATED 

TULSA, OKLAHOMA 

January 20, 1994 
100 

W R I T T E N T E S T I M 0 N Y 

ORAL TESTH!ONY BY WITNESS: CARMEL ITA SKEETER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

FOR: INDIAN HEALTH CARE RESOURCE CENTER OF TULSA, INC. 

Congressman Bill Richardson and Congressman Mike Synar: 

Indian Health Care Resource Center is a nonprofit comprehensive health care 

facility. Our mission is to elevate the physical and mental health of the 

urban Indian population of Tulsa to the highest level possible. Indian 

Health Care is an Indian Clinic for all Federally Recognized Tribal members. 

We provide outpatient, medical, dental, mental health, chemical dependency, 

optometry, HIV/AIDS testing, counseling, outreach, Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) Nutritional program, and pharmacy services for Tulsa's 18,000 

Indians and their dependents. We have a grant from Administration for Native 

Americans (ANA) for economic development. We are funded by federal, state 

and private grants and contracts, third party reimbursements, and private 

donations. We are State certified for Federally Qualified Health Centers 

(FQHC) and receive cost-based reimbursement rather than fee for service 

reimbursement. We have been in operation for 17 years. 

For nine years, we were funded out of Title V, Indian Health Care Improvement Act. In 1985, Congressional action moved our funding from Title V to 

01 Line Item for Hospitals and Clinics of Indian Health Service (IHS) budget. 

This action made us a national demonstration project for IHS. We are one of 

two organizations in the nation. Oklahoma City Urban has this status. The 

new Indian Health Care Improvement Act has given us this status until year 

2000, Section 512 of PL 94-437. Oklahoma City and Tulsa are to be treated 

as service units in the allocation of resources and coordination of care 

and shall not be subject to the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination· 

Act for the term of such projects. The Secretary shall provide assistance 

to such projects in the development of resources, equipment and facility 

needs. 

Indian Health Care's biggest need today is a facility that meets all the 

federal and state laws regarding Americans with Disabilities Act. We have 

made a big step in that direction with the $325,000 given to us in the last 

federal budget passed. This $325,000 plus our third party collection will 

enable us to lease a new facility. 

We support President Clinton's Health Security Act proposal on how it 

affects IHS and tribes. 

American Indians and Alaska Natives who are eligible to receive services also 

will be eligible to receive services according to the current version of 

the Health Security Act. This will guarantee a level of care to Indian people 

not hased on availability of funds. 

American Indians would be able to enroll in IHS programs to receive services 

at IHS facilities, a tribal health care facility or an urban Indian program. 
101 

If American Indians enroll in a health care program other than IHS, they must 

pa y the same average amount for services as non-Indians. Individuals cannot 

be enr ol led in IHS and anothe r health ca re program simult aneousl y. 

We support this proposed health plan fo r American Indians so the Indians will 

no t ge t left out of universal hea lth ca re. It has been hist orical that 

anytime funds and responsibil ity of Indian programs a r e turned ove r to the 

St ate, Indi ans ge t the short end of the funds. 

The Oklahoma State Health Department did not awa rd any HIV/AIDS preven tion , 

education and testing funds to any Indian programs this year. Indians have 

t he highest STD rates and teen pregnancies of any minority group . We have 

high alcohol and drug abuse. Wi t h all t hese factors , our race is a prime 

targe t for HIV/AIDS . The State of Ok lahoma and IHS a re no t showing enough 

concern for t his deadly disea s e . Indian Health Care Resource Center now has 

21 HIV/AIDS pa t ients, the younge st being three years old. 

IHCRC did r ece i ve a contract from the state, bu t this is for gay males and 

youth of color . We are t o educate safe sex of gay men and you th that have 

sex with men. 

Our you th progr am on a lc ohol and drug abuse preven ti on was not renewed this 

yea r through the Ok l ahoma State Mental Health and Alcohol Abuse Department. 

This pr ogram was five years old. We t augh t childr en running for fun and 

competition . We held se l f-est eem classes, Ame rican Indian culture, songs, 

bead~ork, flute making, and swea t lodges. This program was started so we 

could t each I ndian children the r e a re other ways of living besides a lcohol 

and drugs. 

Bo t h of these issues deal direc t ly with t he heart of pr oblems in the I ndian 

community today and the nation at large. 

We are asking the Congress t o please review thes e programs and make sure funds 

are availab le f or programs such as ours and na t ion- wide . We need to make 

sur e if federal funds come to states fo r Indians that the Indians do rece ive 

them. It seems as soon as the states have budget shortfalls, the Indians 

suffer. IHS funds are not near the level that Indians need f or he a lth promotion and disease prevention. Until these funds can be increased, our 

he a lth status will always be below the national norm. 

BIA reorganization is decreasing urban funding by 10%, which Indian Health 

Care Resour ce Center of Tulsa, I nc . (lHCRC) cannot afford. 

As eve ryone knows, the Indian popula tion in urban area s is on the rise. Tulsa, 

Oklahoma a lone has the second highest urban American Indian population in the 

United St a tes. When Ind ians move t o the urban areas, they l ose their support 

systems, and fal l int o situations such as l ac k of employment, lack of health 

care, and poverty, no t t o mention alcohol and drug abuse, and divorce, which 

put undue stress on the family and make children vulnerable to neglect and 

child abuse. Ultimately this results in legal trouble for the f amilies. The 

children are picked up by DHS and put in foster care. Urban programs are 

needed to help act as the liaison for the tribe and city court system or DHS. 

With the decrease in funding from the BIA, IHCRC can no longer fill this role. 

It has not been a problem for the big tribes of Oklahoma, such as the Creeks 

and the Cherokees, but it is a problem for the small tribes that do not have 
102 

the resources to help these fami lies. I HCRC d'les no t hav e the resources, even 

as a RIA grantee. IHCRC rea liz es the funds are for the tribes, bu t their 

members are in the urban areas too . 

This past year, IHCRC was fund ed $46 ,000 fo r t wo staff people . II!CRC had 

change d its objectives from DHS and court j ntervention to Family Pre serva tion 

and Safe Home Placement. Safe Ho~es are cer t ified by IHCRC and the State of 

Oklahoma . Mo thers can tempora rily place their children in Sa fe Homes , while 

they receive inpa tient servicPs for substa nce abuse problems. lt i s believed 

that women wi l l more like l y accept tr ea tment if they do no t f ear t he loss o f 

their chi l dr en . 

Family Preservation is an alternati ve to place~ent. Working i n the home, 

family pre se rva tion addresses fam il y s tresses , preven t s removal, protects 

children, and keeps t he family intac t while enhancing its abi lity to func tion . 

This model mee t s Indian Child Welfa re policy (23.3) of pr omo t ing the stability 

of Indian families. It addresses the se rv ice populati on ' s socia l problems 

leading t o abuse and neglec t . I t targets chi l dren who fall under the Indian 

Child ~elfa e Act and would re quire mobiliza ti on of tribal resources should 

the State child welfare boa rd become involved. Family Preservation promotes 

a ••qu i ck in - qu i ck out'' approach, to enable t he family to re gain cont rol of 

their family with a new positive outlook. 

Family Preservation i s a cost effec tive program that uses a home-based syst emic 

app r oac h . It treats the family as a whole based on family and caseworker 

selected solu tions . I t t eaches family skills t ha t pr omote family independence 

and use of communit y resources for problem resolution. 

Facts: 

The city limits of Tulsa, Oklahoma has the second l argest urban 

Indian population in the nation ( 19 90 Census) . 

• Indians are approximately 57. of Tulsa ' s total popul a tion . 

• Che r okee , Creek, and Osage ~a ions ' boundaries all mee t in Tulsa. 

• IHCRC serves 17,091 American Indians liv ing within the c ity limits 

of Tulsa, Oklahoma and their dependents . Some 5,461 (32%) are 

children under 18 years of age . (1990 Census). 

' Of the 661 confirmed child •buse and neglect cases in Tulsa Coun t y, 

an estimated 80 (12.37.) a re Indian chil dren . 

• 73% of IHCRC clients earn incomes less than $10,000 per yea r 

(IHCRC 1988). $12,500 is a "very low income " for t he Tulsa 

metroplex area (HUD 1990). 

• 32 7. of Tulsa' s Indian population ove r 25 have no t completed high 

schoo l; this compares to 28% for the general population ( 1980 Census). 

• 8.97. of the Indians enrolled i n high school wi ll drop out (Tulsa 

Public Schools 1991). 
103 

• The undereducated are less likely to be trained in life coping 

or parenting skills and will more than likely have difficulty in 

meeting basic living needs. 

• In 1990, there were 1,219 births to teens in Tulsa County; 127. (147) 

were Indian (Oklahoma Department of Health 1991). 

• 1,013 (12.3%) of the State's confirmed abuse and neglect cases in 

1990 were American Indian (Garrett 1991). 

• Tulsa Indians have substance abuse problems, mostly with alcohol. 

• In 1990, 70.2% (708) of the ad ult Indian arre sts in Tulsa County 

were for alcohol/drug violations. Drunkenness made up 68% (483) 

of those arrests (Oklahoma State Bureau of Inve stigations, b, 1991). 

I n addition to Safe Home Placement and Family Preserva tion Services, availability 

and accessibility to services are also important factors that are met by IHCRC. 

I HCRC is centrally located for most of the Indian population. It is within 

safe walking distance from the central exchange point for all intercity bus 

routes. And, for Indians without transportation, IHCRC has four (4) vehi cles 

to access clients to services. Perception and cultural barriers limit the 

use of child welfare programs by American Indians. Most other Tulsa programs 

are downtown, as is IHCRC. However, other agencies (non-Indian) are seen as 

intrusive, and too "white". Cultural barriers prohibit the use of other agencies. 

IHCRC has an understanding of customs, belief, humor, behaviors, and pre fe rences 

that are specific to individual tribes, which brings about positive relationships between IHCRC staff and clients, and does not delay delivery of services. 

Finally, the services IHCRC provides are not duplicat ions of other tribal 

programs. The three (3) tribes with boundaries in Tulsa do not provide family 

preservation, counseling, parenting skills, recreational activities, or temporary 

placement. All three (3) tribes were contacted last year concerning the proposed services of the BIA program. All responded the services would enhance 

tribal programs and add to the continuum of care for Indian children. 

Please do not support the reduction of the availability of funds for sma ller 

tribes and urban programs such as IHCRC. The total number to be served by 

IHCRC's Family Preservation Services this year is 185. Reductions in funding 

limit the number of children that have the potential to live in normal, functional families without the fear of abuse and neglect. 

IHCRC has been able to grow and meet some of the health needs of Indians in 

Tulsa with your help from Congress. Please continue to support us. Thank 

you for the time you have allowed me to speak. 
104 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW KAULEY 

Mr. KAULEY. Thank you, Chairman Richardson for the invitation 

to testify before the Subcommittee. 

In 1971, the Association of American Indians was founded as an 

educational, scientific and charitable non-profit corporation, with a 

mission to raise the health status of American Indians to a level 

equal to that of the predominant non-Indian American population. AAIP recognizes that manpower issues and the health status of 

Native people should be on the forefront of discussions when devising a new system of health care delivery. The issue of manpower 

shortage is clearly one which stands in the way of elevating the 

health status of Native Americans. The Indian physician is capable 

of delivering western medicine within the social context of an Indian community. Health care reform needs to assure culturally appropriate health care is provided and available to Indian consumers. AAIP is concerned that Indian communities may not be com- petitive and fall by the wayside. If this happens, then we are denying Indian people culturally appropriate health care which is a key 

element for improving the health status of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. 

In 1986, a study of Indian health by the Office of Technology Assessment reported that in the early 1950s, 56 percent of Indian 

deaths occurred in individuals younger than age 45. By 1982, that 

had only improved to 37 percent of Indian deaths occurring to 

those younger than 45, compared with only 12 percent of U.S. all 

races deaths occurring in that age group. In 1993, the Indian 

Health Service publication "Trends in Indian Health" reported the 

leading cause of death for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

was disease of the heart. IHS also reported tuberculosis to be at 

520 percent greater; alcoholism 433 percent greater; diabetes 188 

percent greater and accidents 166 percent greater than those for 

the U.S. all races population. The morbidity and mortality statistics represent a crisis in health care for American Indians. In the 

words of Gerald Hill, M.D., President of the Association, "I deem 

these numbers to be unacceptable." Health reform should not inhibit the progress we are making with Indian people. In the past 

decade AAIP has promoted culturally appropriate health care for 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. AAIP has advocated for traditional health care and the recognition of traditional healers. In 

addition, health care reform should include adequate funding. His- torically, IHS allocations have been inadequate to meet the medical 

needs of Native American populations throughout all of Indian 

country, which in essence created rationed health care and deferred 

health services. 

In manpower, in the Native American student, we have an incredibly valuable resource. We must promote the pursuit of health 

careers, namely by reaching out to undergraduates and high school 

students. 

Mr. Chairman, I am reading portions of my report that I developed for specifically my presentation and I see that my time is running out. So I would like to move down to my recommendations. And these are some very specific recommendations. 
105 

Health care refonn should increase the recruitment, preparation 

and retention of American Indian and Alaska Natives into medical, 

nursing, public health and other health professions. 

Expansion of the Indian Health Service Scholarship Program and 

Loan Repayment Program to fund all eligible applicants. 

Establish a one physician pay system for all federal physicians. For example, Veterans Affairs physicians are funded through Title 

38 funds and make an average of 25 to 30 thousand dollars more 

per year than IHS physicians. Increase the bargaining power of Indian health care facilities in 

recruiting and retaining physicians to make them competitive with 

the VA system. 

Establish equitable pay for IHS physicians to improve the vacancy and turnover rate of physicians in the IHS. Thus providing 

a higher quality and continuity of care for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. 

Expand the National Health Service Corps and related programs 

to attract and retain American Indians and Alaska Native health 

professionals to serve in Indian communities. Change the rules regulating H.R. 2685, Physician's Comparability Allowances to enable to the IHS, Public Law 94-437 physicians 

to receive comparable pay during their payback obligations, thus 

serving as an incentive to remain in the IHS. 

Finally, I strongly urge the Subcommittee recognize the importance of accessible, quality and culturally appropriate health care 

for all Native Americans/Alaska Natives. 

I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of 

the Association of American Indian Physicians. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kauley follows:] 
106 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

january 20, 1994 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

Matthew Kauley 

Association of American Indian Physicians 

1235 Sovereign Row, Suite C-7 

Oklahoma City, OK 73108 

Telephone #405-946-7072 

Fax #405-946-7651 

Summary of Comments: Health Care Reform 

1235 Sovereign Row, Suite C-7 

Oklahoma Cicy, OK 73107 

( 405) 946-7072 
107 

INTRODUCTION 

Thank you Chairman Richardson for the invitation to testify before the 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs on Health Care Reform and 

issues that affect Indian people. My name is Matthew W. Kauley , Acting 

Executive Director for the Association of American Indian Physicians 

(AAIP). In 1971 AAIP was founded as an educational , scientific and 

charitable non-profit corporation with a mission "to raise the health status 

of American Indians to a level equal to that of the predominant nonIndian American population ." AAIP recognizes that manpower issues and 

the health status of Native People should be on the forefront of discussion 

when devising a new system of health care delivery . The issue of 

manpower shonage is clearly one which stands in the way of elevating the 

health status of Native Americans. The Indian Physician is capable of 

delivering western medicine within the social and context of an Indian 

commumues. Health Care Reform needs to assure culturally appropriate 

health care is provided and available to Indian consumers. AAIP is 

concerned that Indian communities may not be competitive and fall by 

the way side. If this happens then we are denying Indian people 

culturally appropriate health care which is a key element for improving 

the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Health Status of American Indians 

AAIP recognizes the health condition of American Indians continues to 

remain poorer then the U.S. population . The most persistent and 

significant indicator of the health status of American Indians is the fact 

that Indians do not live as long as other Americans. A 1986 study of 

Indian health by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported that 

"In the early 1950's, 56 percent of Indian deaths occurred in individuals 

younger than age 45. By 1982, that had only improved to 37 percent of 

Indian deaths occurring to those younger than 45, compared with only 12 

percent of U.S. All Races deaths occurring in that age group." In 1993. the 

Indian Health Service publication "Trends in Indian Health " reported the 

leading cause of death for American Indians and Alaska Natives was 

"diseases of the heart" . IHS also reported tuberculosis to be at 520% 

greater, · alcoholism 433% greater, diabetes 188% greater, and accidents 

166% greater than those for the U.S . All Races population. The morbidity 

and mortality statistics represents a crisis in health care of American 

Indians. In the words of Gerald Hill, M.D. President of the AAIP "I deem 

these numbers to be unacceptable". Health Care reform should not inhibit 

the process we are making with Indian people. In the past decade AAIP 

has promoted culturally appropriate health care for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. AAIP has advocated for Traditional Health Care and the 
108 

recogmuon of traditional healers. In addition, Health Care Reform should 

include adequate funding . Historically, rHS allocations have been 

inadequate to meet the medical needs of Native American populations 

throughout all of Indian country which in essence created rationed health 

care and deferred health services. 

Manpower 

In the Native American student we have an incredibly valuable resource. 

We must promote the pursuit of health careers, namely by reaching out to 

undergraduate and high school students much as the AAIP presently does 

but on a larger scale. We must make available the role models and 

resources necessary to motivate our young people. Working with Native 

Americans must be made a viable career option with competitive salaries, 

adequate support staff, as well as adequate facilities being important 

factors in the recruitment and retention of medical staff. Again this 

addresses the issues of provider shortages and high turnover rates, both of 

which greatly effect the health status of Native Americans/Alaska Natives. 

Stable medical staffs are much more likely to integrate into communities, 

thus allowing for community input concerning medical care and 

community needs. There must be trust and cooperation between 

providers and communities before any prevention or public health 

procedures can take place. The IHS Quality Mana~ement Workgroup on 

Health Professions Recruitment and Retention. Final Report. March 1993 

reports that "Recruitment of health care professionals has been a major 

concern of the Indian Health Service for the past decade, enhanced by the 

decrease in National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients that began 

in 1986. Retention of health care professionals is essential in order for the 

IHS to accomplish its mission" . The committee further stated that 

problems in housing, isolated locations. administrative support and low 

pay contributed to the poor retention rate for providers. The report also 

recognized Lawton, Ada, Sallisaw, Stilwell and Salina as crisis sites. 

Recommendations 

Health Care Reform should increase the recruitment, preparation and 

retention of American Indian and Alaska Natives into medical, nursing, 

public health and other health professions. 

Expansion of the Indian Health Service Scholarship Program and Loan 

Repayment Program to fund all eligible applicants. 

Establish a one physician pay system for all federal physicians. For 

example Veteran Affairs physicians are funded through Title 38 funds and 

2 
109 

make an average of 25-30 thousand dollars more per year than IHS 

physicians. 

Increase the bargaining power of Indian health care facilities in recrunmg 

and retaining physicians to make them competitive with the VA system. 

Establish equitable pay for IHS physicians to improve the vacancy and 

turn over rate of physicians in the IHS. Thus providing a higher quality 

and continuity of care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Expand the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) and related programs to 

attract and retain American Indian and Alaska Native health professionals 

to serve in Indian communities. 

Change the rules regulating H.R. 2685 , Physician's Comparability 

Allowances (PCA) to enable the IHS. PL. 94-437 physicians to receive 

comparable pay during their payback obligations, thus serving as an 

incentive to remain in the IHS. 

Finally, I strongly urge the Subcommittee recognize the importance 

of accessible, quality and culturally appropriate health care for all 

Native Americans/ Alaska Natives. I appreciate this opportunity to 

present testimony on behalf of the AAIP. Thank you. 
110 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Congressman Synar. 

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Bill. First of all, let me thank this panel for being here. The bad news 

is that we have run out of time if we are going to have the opportunity for Bill and the Subcommittee to meet with tribal leaders, 

so we will have to cut this pretty short. 

But I want to leave the record open to submit questions to this 

panel for deeper investigation. The good news is that this panel, which focused in on health 

care, is really still ahead of where we are. We still have adequate 

time to sit down with the tribes, and I know that they are going 

to be making a number of recommendations to Bill and I so that 

we can use that as we mark up the bill in the Health Subcommittee. So let me invite you to not only submit testimony, but to come 

together and give us those kinds of recommendations that will assist us. 

Since we are near the end, let me just say how terrific this hearing has been. I cannot recall in my tenure in Congress a better 

presentation by Oklahomans to the federal government about issues that affect every single citizen in this state. And I think it has 

been an excellent opportunity for not only Bill but myself to get a 

real grasp of the issues that are facing not only Native Americans 

but the individual tribes. And I want to thank all the witnesses for 

being here. 

Again, I want to thank Wilma and her staff, but particularly 

Lynn Howard for doing this. And as I said, we will leave the record 

open for two weeks for those who did not have an opportunity to 

express their testimony verbally today. 

So Bill, thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
111 

UNITED KEETOOWAH BA.t'ffi OF CHEROKEE ThTIIANS IN OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 746 TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHm!A 74465-0746 

JOHN ROSS 

CHIEF 

JI~! HENSON 

ASSIST~'<"f CHIEF 

31 January 1994 

TELEPHO:\K 19181 456-5491 FAX 1918) 456-9601 

Tadd Johnson, Chief of Staff 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

SUB-COMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

JI~!MIE LOU WHITEKILLER 

SECRETARY 

CLARA PROCTOR 

TREASCRER 

Enclosed herewith is documentation pertinent to the federal 

recognition of THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN 

OKLAHOMA (UKB) and copies of the blatant suppressive and 

oppressive efforts of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the 

Muskogee Area Office of Bureau of Indian Affairs toward the UKB. 

The UKB was not invited nor notified of the field hearing held at 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Headquarters, Tahlequah, until a 

facsimile was received at 2:00 p.m. on the afternoon of January 

19 prior to the hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 20, 1994. The 

UKB Headquarters are within three (3) miles of the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma hearing site. Invitations were mailed to 

other Oklahoma Indian tribes dated January 7, 1994. 

The UKB is organized under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 

1936 and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Additionally, 

the UKB possesses a Constitution and Corporate Charter approved 

by the U.S. Congress. 

------------ COUNCIL MEMBERS 

ALLOGAN SLAGLE 

CANADIAN DISTRICT 

EMMA SUE HOLLAND COOWEESCOOWEE DISTRICT 

ADALENE SMITH 

DELAWARE DISTRICT 

JIM PROCTOR FLINT DISTRICT 

RICHARD MANUS 

GOINGSNAKE DISTRICT 

SUSAN ADAIR 

ILLINOIS DISTRICT 

"RESPECT FOR OUR ELDERS" 

ROBERTA SMOKE 

SALINE DISTRICT 

CHARLIE BIRD SEQUOYAH DISTRICT 

MOSE KILLER 

TAHLEQUAH DISTRICT 
112 

Tadd Johnson, Chief of Staff House Sub-Committee on Native American Affairs 

31 January 1994 

Page 2 

As a result of the exclusion of the UKB at the field hearings, 

please enter this letter and information into the Congressional 

Hearings Records for your committee as an OfFICIAL PROTIST~ 

CONTINYED ENFORCEMENT OF AMENDMENT 86. PL 101-116, 

sinc~;z~ 

Amt:'~: Chief 

~jlw 

Encl . 

1. 

2. 

3 . 

4 . 

5. 

6 . 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12 . 

Letter to Merritt Youngdeer, BIA Area Director 

Letter from Deborah J . Haddox 

Talking Points 

An Executive Summary of UKB's Status 

D'Arcy McNickle 

An Historical overview of the UKB 

American Tax Dollars At Work 

Letter to Honorable Al Gore Letter to The Oklahoma Congressional Delegation 

Invitation by Natural Resources Sub-Committee on 

Native American Affairs (01/07/94) 

Invitation by Cherokee Nation (01/19/941 

Copy of News Clipping - Tulsa World - Jan. 23, 1994 
TO: 

[ATTN: 

FR: 

DA: 

RE: 

113 

HONORABLE 3 ILL R: :::OARDSON. CHA I Rl1AN 

l1R. TADD JOHNSON. CH";:F OF S7AF] 

HOUSE NA':'URAL RESCURC;:S COMM:T7~E 

SU8COMMI'!'':'!;;E ON IHDIAN AFFAIRS 

1324 HOUSE LONG~IC::\70: OFFICE Bc:::.;:DIG 

WASHINGTON. D. C. 205l5 

UNITED KEETOOWMi 3AND OF C":::<.Ci<.:O:S INDIANS IN ,JK~ .'.E•:Cl'-A 

CUK8J 

CHIEF/SPOKESMAN JOHN ROSS 

(918) 456-5491/FAX 456-9601 

JANUARY 20, 1994 

FIELD HEARING, TAE:.<:QUAH. OKLAH0f1A. JANUARY 2C, !954 

Th ank you for allow1nQ the Unlted Kee~o~wah Band (UKB ) to sut~ :~ 

tes~1mony before the Commit~ea =egard lnQ the circumstances o! the 

Band. 

We rema1n a federally ~ecoq~1zed tr1be organized on October 3. 

19~0 under OIWA and IRA. The UKB's status controversy (Apr1l 1979 

- October 1993) is resolved. accordi nq to the Department of the 

Interior. In direct talks with Actina Commission Wyman Babby or. 

18 October 1993, we l earned that th•re no lon~er remains any 

doubt of the cu r rent Federal recogn ition and historical existence 

of the UKB. Therefore, the Band ' s name appears again on the 

federa l Reaister not•ce of recoqnized indian entities. 

The UKB believes it is essential that Congress understand the recent events In UKB interactions with the Federal government and 

ather entities. Our experience proves that it remains possible 1n 

the 1990s for a historical Tribe to have Federal recognit ion , and to lose it. It is possible for a tribe to have a 

continuously-functioning government: duly organized and under OIWA (1~36) and lRA (1934), to find its name on the Federal Reqist er 

listing of recognized existing entities, and still to find 1tself 

terminated administratively and unilaterally, without remedy, recourse, or opportunity for protest. It is time for Congress to 
114 

2 

reconsider carefully the latitude of discretion the BIA is 

allowed to exercise to the detriment of the tribes in these 

matters of tribal status, to consider the ulterior aqendas of 

persons challdn~1nq the status of tr1bes, and to listen more carefully when a tribe tells you, "We exist." The conduct of the 

AlA and of CNO in th1s clearly has been unconscionable, as has 

been the tailure o! Congress to carry out its investigative 

tunc-!:1on before effectively TERMINATING A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED 

IRlak· Members of Conqreas recently have •ada many sober statements for the record that the Federal-Indian relationship is ao sacrcsa!lct that it is virtually inviolable, once undertaken. 

'l'he::-efore, they say, any unacknowledged or terminated tribes must be subjected to a 8IA inquisition at the acknowledgment candida~e's expense 1n order to assure accuracy and the quali~y 

and charac-.:er of the rela'!:ionship. Fur'!:her, they claim that no 1:r1be should be legislatively acknowledged, out of fairness ~o 

<he ~r:=es whose ~ames already appear on the Federal Reqis<er, 

and to those seven tribes out of the hundreds of acknowledgment 

cand"dates who have surv1ved the 25 C. F. R. 83 process. Where were '!:hese h1ghlY dist1nquished members of Congress, and how did 

they vo<e. on the day Congress passed Amendment 86, P. L. 101-116 

1n 1991? Why is it unnecesaary to subject the challengers of a tribe. partlcularly a recognized tribe, to the same level of sc~utiny? The events surrounding the passage of this Amendment 86 

pro"e that the majortty of Members of Congres• simply ware not 

VlQtlant about the Federal-Indian relationship, because it took a ma)orJty to approve Amendment 86. Because Amendment 86 remains in 

effect. according to the BIA, we can only conclude that majority 

of !1embers of Congress still do not understand that if you are go1ng to require tribes to mee'!: standard• to qat "in '!:he door" to the federal-Indlan relationship, jou should make sure it i: at least as difficult to thrust '!:ribes out in the cold. We have 

become much mora aware of the similar problems of other tribes 

around the country. We can see that we are not '!:he only 

recognized '!:ribe to be stripped of s'!:atus due to administrative 

'!:ermination or lack of congrealional over8ight. The problem here 

certatnly is not the result of congressional micromanagement of 

the BIA in '!:he execution of policies on status clarifica'!:ion, but one of tellino the BIA to co8ts down, and oiv1no BIA staff 

plenary power to make up laws and policies to fit each case. Our 

problem was no'!: one of nonrecognition, but of termination and 

unacknowledgment, The Federal-Indian relationship is not treated 

sacrosanct, as lono as a simple accomodation of one Member of 

Congress by others (leqielative logrolling) can terminate a tribe 

for the record in less than half an hour regardless of the outcome. Tribes and the public have heard grave protestations 

from Congress for years, regarding the need for a grueling 

process !or acknowledqino tribes. As time goes on, the process 

gets worse, and yet acknowledged tribes find themselves easily 

terminated. What we needed · before the creation of the 

acknowledgment process was a process or policy for keepino tribes 

acknowledged. Our experience makes the promise of self-
115 

3 

determ1na~io n and self-go vernance ~~ bst ntial to us . The EIA 

and 1ts fr i ends told us i n 1978 a~ 1t wa s ''necessary'' to cr~ata 

a pro l cnq ed and 1nquisitor1al dni n1st~at1ve pro cess f o r test:ng triba l ex1atence, alleQedly to assure the sanctity and qrav1ty of 

the Federal-Indian relat1cnship once :t is undertaken . The 25 C. F. R. 83 process does not protect or el e vate the status c : 

recogn1zed proc ess . The process itse" : and other tests f o r t r : bal 

status have become a pious :raud. What d1 d the "recognlti on 

policy" do to pre vent Amendmen t 86 1n 1991? No member of Congress 

not:cec that a l lowi ng ou r summary ter~1nation wo ul d vi ol a ta ~he 

pollCleS undergl rd 25 c . F. R. e3. Th e purposes t he pr ocess serve s are these: define t~1b es ou t of '' ex i s tence. 1

' or kee~ th em 

in a n~ h~l nd until they are ~co weak to fiQht, and w!ther away. 

What w~ need is a 1'5chindler's List ', for tribal peop le . 

We no l onQer can acc e pt as ~ed ible th e pious assuranc~s ~= o~ 

mb e~3 of Conqress that th e ad m1~ strative procedures f or r.e 

re v i ew of ~r 4ba l s~atus are equ 1tab: e and subj~ct to Vlg~ ~nt 

eongress 1onal oversight. The UKB race! ved no benefit of r ev1ew a~ 

al l before we were adm•nistrati ve ly terminated i n 199 1. Instead. 

after the pasaage of Ame ndment 86, we were subject ed c v 

sugge~t ion s o r demands from various quarters , inc ludinq CNO and 

its friends, that we undertake the 25 C. F. R. 83 process. If the 

acknowledgment process is falr, ana fair for all, and i: c~e 

essent i al test of that process is the determination whether a 

~ 

contemporary community of persons eprolled in the tri be presentlY 

and has internal cohesi on , then let CNO and these others 

prove ~hey can meet the tests today, or a t ten year intervals. 

There ar6 recognized tribes that lack rolls and yet cla1m as members persons •cattered throughout the planet wh o lack contact with their qovernment or other tribal members. When these 

advocates of the present policies and processes for status clarification understand how easi ly Congre•s can strike 

unilaterally, perhapa they will call for reform of the 25 C. F. 

R. 83 process and the Solici tor's Opin i ons . When witnesses 

testify to your Committee about how wonderful the BIA's status clarification processes are, maybe some should ask if they know 

what happened to us. 

We never can forget the treatment at the hand• of tribes t hat 

claimed after Amendment 86 that our only recour•e was to spend 

the next ten years in yet another process of status clarification, although Amendment 86 rendered us ineligible to receive even an ANA grant to do a Federal acknowledgment 

petition! Some of these parties knew, or should have known, that 

the UKB succeeded in the 1940s in winni ng a ten-year battle to reaffirm our historical existence. Why do we have to do it agai n , and for whom? In 1944, wa overcame the effects on us of a 

defective Solicitor's Opinion of 1937 regarding the right of one 

of our subordinate factions (the Keetoowah Society, Inc.) to reorganize ••parate from the Band under OIWA and IRA. We proved 

that the Keetoowah corporation was subordinate to the Band . Th~ 
116 

4 

only authority the BIA produced at the 1991 hearing on Amendment 

86 was a copy of that defective 1937 Kirgis Opinion on the 

Keetoowah Society, Inc.! The BIA failed to produce the 

determ1nat1on of Act1ng Commiss1oner Darcy McNickle of 1944 that 

reaffirmed our historical status, or the testimony of Interior 

Secretary fortas in 1946 supporting the passage of our Act of 

status clarification. We can only conclude from our experience 

that anyone who opposes the status of any recognized tribe for 

any reas on can have a ready ear somewhere in Congress and the 

BIA . An y " i nterested party," whether a tribe or private interest, 

can ge t a tr 1be t erminated with a convinc i ng lie , m1nimal effort 

and no proo f at al l . We wonder who profitted from this 

trar.sact1on, and how. We are sure our case i3 not an exception. 

If t he a~•f ca~ion of our status and the 21 October 1993 

bl a~lo n of our name i n the Federal Register is any 

1nd 1c ati on. it appears that the present administrati on i s 

attempt•ng to clea n up the tribal acknowledgment meas that has 

acc umu lated during the last 14 years, d ur i ng which we have been 

s u b j ect ed to unremitting calumny and abuse at the hands of the 

Depart men t . CNO and its supporters. Wh i le we are very grateful 

for recent reforms. and our own restorat1on, must remains for 

Congress to do. This first thing that we hope ·congress w1ll do is 

expressl y rescind Amendment 86 of P. L. 101-116 and repudiate the 

pol1cy of Terminat1on onca and for all. We know from our 

experience that Termination 1entiment remain• very much alivs in 

part because i t is laraely unconscious . The easy way to get rid 

of a problem is define it out of existence : that is how Congress 

t erminated us. We also pray that Congress will reaffirm that s~atus of all Indian tribes that have made treaties and 

alternative contractual agreements with the United States. What 

is our recourse? Everyone responsible for what happened to the 

UKB can claim sovereign immunity. Local governments were turned 

against us. We learned that we could rely on few friends, for 

whom we are grateful. Separated from the company of "recognized 

tri bes." we have been subject to attack from all sides. This is 

what it is to be a recognized tribe that the Nation decides to f o rget, 

In 1991, the UKB hoped that Congreee would at least allow us to respond to the attack• on the Band, or that the committees of 

jurisdiction would hold a hearing to allow the UKB to present 

testimony regarding our statue. The UKB hoped to avoid needless 

inconvenience and embarra••ment to all concerned at the time, but 

we also realized the duty had been imposed upon us to dieprove 

scurr1lous allegations regarding our status made by the BIA and 

CNO at hearings that led to th• passage of Amendment 86, P. L. 

101-116 (1991) . Instead, tearing embarrassing disclosures, 

Pri ncipal Chief Wilma Mankiller advised membare of Congress in 

1991 that the UKB did not want to have a hearing, after all. 

Aqain, aa UGual, no one consulted us, or liatened to us when we 

attempted to correct the Mankill•r administration's 
117 

s 

misstatements. 

Accordin~ to FOIA disclosures daced December 10 and 20 199~. as 

Reg

reflected 

1ster. we 

1n are the 

fully 

repuol1cation 

recogn1zed, 

of 

do 

our not name need in 

to the clarify ~ our ~tatua aa a hietoric tr1be, Qnd have no va l id issue of ''dual 

enrollment" w1th Cherokee Nat1on of Oklahoma (CNO). Specifically, 

withln the rneaninq and current ~~andard interpretat1on ot 25 

C.F . R. 83.2 {k), the UKB has no dual enrollment conflict with 

CNO . Th i s is because CNO ha~ no current BIA approved rol l . or roll w1thin the meaninq of ''tr1b8l roll'' or ''tribal rol l !cr 

tribal purposes" accord1n~ to the BIA Manual (Enrol:zent 

Supplement 1983 ). The UKE does not need to amend its Charter or Const1tut•on to resolve any previously presumed dual affiliat1on 

problem w1th CNO . 

The racord at the Interior budqet hearings before Ccn~resszan 

Aucoin 1ncludes test1mony regard1ng certain findings ar.d 

determinations that· the BIA alle~edly had made in 1980 aoainst 

the Bo.nd. "Quotas" from these entirely hctitious "find1n~s." 

included in Congressman Synar's briefing book. provided the so i e justification for the passag• of Amendment 66. The December 19~j 

FOIA disclosures from the BIA prove that the much-touted 1980 8lA 

written determination never existed, that there never was any 

such determ>nat1on at any date, that thare is no dual enrollment 

problem between the UKB and CNO. and that all the allegations 

against the UKB were utterly false. AccordinQ to the BIA's 

disclosure to the UKB of Decemb•r 20, there never was an> contin~ancy plan for restcrino services or rights to land 

acquisit.1on to the UKB in the event our alleged/non-existent 

"dual affiliation" problems were resolved. 

Worse still, since cur status hal been restored, we also have 

learned recently through the FOIA process that BIA interference 

with our · sovereignty and self-determination has continued in 

spite of this turn of events. In mid-November 1993, ataf! of the Musko~ee a~ency (specifically, Mr. Dennis Wyclitfe) deliberately 

published false information throu~h Arkansas newepapers regardin~ 

our status as a tribe, in spits of the clarification of our status and the republication of our name in the Federal Register on October 21, 1993. We evan received a written apoloQy signed by 

Ms. Deborah Maddox of the BIA's Central Office in Washington, D. 

C .. dated December 10 and sent December 27, 1993. In the letter on the Wycliffe misrepresentations, Ms. Maddox reviewed the 

Muskogee Agency's posture on the UKB's s~atus and •ituaticn. 

The BIA's second recent FOIA releaae to the UKB dated December 20 

(mailed December 27) 1993 shows that the Muskooee Agency's 

position on the UKB remains fundamentally and logically at odds 

with what tha Central Office knows is true. For instance, as the 

December 20 FOIA disclosure from the BIA shows. CNO has no roll. 

If CNO has no roll, how can anyone enrolled in a different tribe 
118 

6 

be dually enrolled? R1ghcs to benefit due to descendancy from the 

1907 Che rokee Dawes Commission ( Fina l Secrecarial Judgment ) Roll 

a llow persons on t hat r o ll or descended !rom that rol l to 

partic1pate in programs and judgment funds, and allow persons 

certif1ed as Dawes enrol lees or their descendants to register 

w1th CNO. R1ghts of a registree who belonas to t he descend ancy 

class of CNO rema1n intact as a legal matter regardless of a 

rAg l strae's affil iation outside the CNO regiatrat1on class, in a 

h1storic tribe thac ha s a roll , Membership in a descendancy class 

stemm1ng from the creation of a Federal judgment roll must not be 

confused wi ch an inc1v1dual' s riaht to enjoy triba l membersh~p 

through enrollment in a federally-recognized tribe. as approved 

by a recogn~zed Tribal Council. CNO Tribal Counc il, to our 

kr.owledae. do es not act on membership iss ues . Un like the UKB 

Constitut:on and Ordinances, the CNO Constitution does not ev e n 

allow the CNO Counc1l t o take s uch actions. 

On Augus~ 24. 1992. Acting As1 1sta nt Secretary Ron Eden sent the 

UKE a letter, informing the Band of its separate . autonomou s 

status and fund1ng e liqibl lity. The paper trail we received under 

FOIA release of December 20, 1993 proved that this letter went 

thr ough a ser1es of drafts between Apri l and Auaust 1992. during 

wh:ch t1me the BIA's posi tion changed remarkably, a s staff of the 

Sol 1citor's Otf1ce worr ied about the obvious defects of the 

Depar~m nt's position. The Department's 1992 retreat from its 

1991 posit1on and misr epr esentations i s not widely known. 

On August 26, 1992, CNO and Eastern Band of Cherokees ado pted a 

jo1nt resolution declaring themselves to be the on ly federally 

recognized Cherokee tri bes. We recall well the ro l e that one of 

~he attorneys for Eastern Band of Cherokess {Mr. George Waters) 

ha a had in promoting the present Acknowledament process as an 

ad v1sor to NCAI in 1978 , and the prominent place he has held in 

advo c ating a gruel i ng acknowl edgment process for other tribes . 

Mr . Waters has insisted that the 25 C. F . R. 83 acknowledament 

pr ocess is insurance against preciaely the sort of degradati on of 

tr1bal sovere1gnty that his clients -- the Eastern Band of 

Cherokees - - has helped to perpetrate against the UKB. 

We ~re quite aware than in his. testimony on S. 1315 (the Federal 

Acknowledqment Process Reform Bill) in October 1991 that Chief 

Taylor of Eastern Band testified that only two recognized 

CheroKee cribes exist: Eastern Band and CNO . The BIA accepted and 

condon&d the joint resolution against the UKB of CNO and Eaatern 

Band , even though the UKB had raceived that memo from Ron Eden on 

August 24. 1992 declaring that wa wer& an autonomous recognized 

Amendment 

sover e i gn el

86. 

igi

In 

ble 

vi

for 

ew 

separate 

of CNO, the 

BIA 

Eastern 

funding 

Band 

and 

of 

aerv

Cherokees, 

i ces, ~ 

and 

certain others, the UKB was effectively terminated under 

Amendment 86, P . L . 101-116 {1991) . Early in January 1993. 

Princ1pal Chief Mankiller of CNO (dis)informed gov ernors of at 

least 20 states in wr1tina. with no consultation or authorization 
119 

7 

from the BIA (see 20 December 1993 BIA FOIA release), that the 

UKB wa~ unacknowledged, and thac at besc, we deserved to have to 

endure the arduous 25 c. F. R. 83 Acknow l edgment pr~cess co resolve our status . 

Aa the d1rect result of Amendment 86, we rece1ve no tr: bal fund1n~. Due also to Amendment 86, as narrowly 1nterpreted, we 

were unable to get an ANA Qrant to clarify our status, though 

unacknowledged tr1bes such as the Delaware Tr1be have rece i ved 

such ass1stance. The Del aware Tribe res1des within CNO's former 

boundaries, ls claimed to be unrecognized, and therefore 1s not 

subjoct to Amendment 86, ac least for now. When and if the1r status lS restored, w1ll the Delawares, too. be subject to Ame ndment 86? Congr ess should as k ~ CNC so ~ese~~s our eff r~s 

to s urvive , wh 1le CrQek ~a~ion ( Muscoqee) li ves in appa~a n~ 

harmony w1th the Creek Towns that reside wi thin the boundar1es of 

the old Creek Nat1on. We ~ave pa1d out of our own sweat and 

dollars to clarify our sta~~s as a tribe oroan1zed under OIWA and 

IRA in the face of irt~a lly unan1mous oppos1t1on from the 

qovernment. Now . it aPpears. we cont1nue to be punished . beca US 9 

of what we have won. 

Althou~h we beliave the adopt1on of amendment 86 in 1991 was lnequitable and groundless. we st1ll tend to our business as best 

we c~n. We wane to be treated as the qood ne i ghbors we have tr1ed to be , but CNO has used every ploy imaq1nable to pre vent our 

survival even outs1de Oklahoma. Therefore, we have been unable to 

get cooperation from the SIA 1n putt1ng even donated land 1nto tru~t outs1de CNO's former boundaries. CNO invar1ably intervenes 

with local governments and civic groups in Arkansas or anywhere 

else we seek opportunity for economic development to prevent ou' 

efforts to relocate, even though our relocat1on i s a heroic eff~rt to accomodate CNO . The BIA's FOIA disclosure to the UKB of 

December 10. 1993 (sent December 27, 1993) reflects that a campaiqn of libel and deceit by CNO a~a1nst the UKB runs unimped•d and openly abetted by BIA personnel, as always. 

However, sincere, gracious and well intended. the December 27, 

1993 apology from Ms. Deborah Maddox for any damage result1ng 

from the BIA ataff's willing participation in these sordid 

attacks on the UKB is no •ubstitute for stopping the damage at ita source. 

In summary, since 1991 . the UKB has been able to obtain clear 

proof (primarily, through research in the National Archives and 

Agency records, in Tr1bal Council files, and corroborat•d throuqh 

disclo•ures from the BIA pursuant to the Freedom of Information 

disclosure procesa) that the allegation• against the UKB that 

lead Congress to adopt Amendment 86 to P. L. 101-116 in 1991 were entirely unfounded. If the record had been clarified in 1991, we would not have been subjected to what amounted to de facto 

administrative termination at the time. Amendment 86 in p. L. 

101-116 (1991) remains in effect. The UKB respectfully requests 
120 

8 

that Congress cons1der this information and rescind Amendment 86 

as soon as poss!b l e. In compliance with Amendment 86, since we 

cannot get perm1ss1on from CNO to put land in trust Wlthin our 

c u rrent boundar1es, the UKB has placed request before the BIA to 

put land into trust for us outs1de the 14 northeastern counties 

of Oklahoma, bu~ so for nothing has happened. We al$0 have 

requested that the Central Office remove the UKB from under the 

superv1s1on ot the Muskoqee Agency, due largely to the obviously 

abus1ve conduct of that Agency's staff toward the Band and its 

members: to date. the Department has taken no action on th1s 

request . a l :hou qh Act:ng CommlSSlOner Babby assured us of timely 

action on 18 October 1993. We therefore respectfully request 

aga in the : mm ed:ate recission of Amendment 86, and that t h ese 

remarks and a ny t~ars we may provide w1l l be added to t h e 

p~esen t ea~: q rac¢rd. We appree1ate your attent1on in this 

matter, and in v i te an y tnq ui ries you ma y hav e. 
121 

t.r:-aTED KEETOOWAH BA.'\"D OF CHEROKEE Th"DL~~S IN OKLAHOMA P.O. BOX ~46 TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOl\-L-\ 74465·0746 

TELE?HO:\'E: (918) 456-5491 FAX (9 18) 456-9601 

JOHN ROSS 

CHIEF 

J!l\o!HENSON 

ASSISTA.'IT CHIEF 

January 3, 1994 

Me:ritt You~;~ee~, A=~a :~ctor 

BUREAU OF !Nw:.~N AF:::' .~ :::'s 

201 North 5th St=e~: 

MusKog ee, Oklahoma 4~ l 

~ear !1r. Yo :1gde~: : 

THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS 

has been pr ovided a research paper da ted 12 

Deborah J . Madd ox , Ac~ :n g Director, Office of 

Washington, D. C. (copy enclosed). 

J!:IB.IIE LOU WHITEKIU.ER 

SECRETARY 

Cl..ARA PROCTOR 

TREASURER 

IN OKLAHOMA (UKBl 

December 199 3 fr om 

Tribal Services. 

he UKB 1 under the F~~~dom of Information Act , request ed and 

:eceived the e xclanat ions of numerous t opics/items from the 

Central Office i; Washington , D.C. However, on l y two it ems a~e 

pe:tinent t o t his let~e :: (cond e ns ed questi on s ) 

1 . Is the C~eroke~ Na t i on ~ Okl ahoma (C ~O ) ~ga niz ed 

unde~ the Oklahoma Indi an We l fare Act of 153 6? 

BIA re~ ponse - NO 

2. Has t h e CNO Tribal Council a pprov ed the cur:ent CNO 

"tribal : oll ;" does the CNO have a current tribal 

ro ll with in the meaning of the federal-Indian Law; 

does any departmental determination exist that, while 

both the UKB and CNO have separate current rolls 

(assuming CNO has a cur:ent roll within federal-Indian 

law), the t wo tr ibes have a common base roll, either 

by common c hoice , mutual agreement, Ac t o f Congress, or 

administrative over ride of the determi nation of the Band 

------------ COUNCIL MEMBERS 

ALLOGAN SLAGLE 

CANADIAN DISTRICT 

EMMA SUE HOILAND 

COOWEESCOOWEE DISTRICT 

ADALENE SMITH 

DELA W P.RE DISTRICT 

JIM PROCTOR 

FLINT DISTRICT 

RICHARD MANUS 

GO!NGSNAKE DISTRJCI' 

SUSA.." ADAIR 

ll.LINOIS DISTRICT 

"RESPECT FOR OUR ELDERS" 

JAMES PRITCHETI 

SALINE DISTRICT 

CHARLIE BIRD 

SEQUOYAH DISTRICT 

MOSEKILLER TAHLEQUAH DISTRICT 
122 

Me:ritt Youngdeer, Area Dir~ct r 

3UREAU OF IND:AN AF?AIRS 

Jan uary 3, 1994 

Page 2 

:~ac :je ~a=e rol: o: :~e UXB shall be the 1949 Base 

Roll as ame~ded on : 5 March 1985. 

E!A sp nse - We are not aware of a BIA approved roll 

~or c:IQ - emphas i s addec). 

Mr. Yo ungdee: , how can the Mus k ogee Area Office dete:~ine a =ual 

~embership £or th~ UKB and the CNO when the BIA Central o:: : ce has a differe~t v i ew from the Muskogee Area Office and declares 

the CNO has no Secretarial/BIA-aoproved tribal roll? Also, 

ev ide~ce exists t hat CNO has dual membership with various other 

t ribes . Why are you not concerned with this CNO dual membership? 

Wh y is the CNO NOT reg u ired to amend its Co nstitution? CNO has 

n o authority t o amend or reopen the 1907 Dawes' Roll wi th ou t 

Congressiona l cor.ser.:.. The CNO Tribal Council has NOT a p pr:>v ed 

its own registrat i or. membersh i p . 

Clearly, the UKB, as a matter of law, is to be t~eated as any 

other federally recognized Indian tribe . The UKB has a 

government-to-government relat i onship with the U. S. Government. 

The BIA trust respo nsibil i ty of protecting the sovereignty of 

tribal governments and o v e:seeing tribal admi nis:rations, 

i ncluding the UXB, is extreme l y important. Mr. Youngdeer, the 

Muskogee Area Office has failed miserably with regard to the UKB. 

Please be advised that the UKB ~efuses to tolerate any further 

oppressive actions initiated or propagated by BIA area officials! 

The UKB officials demand the BIA to certify and accept the UKB 

membership ro l l WJTHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO TOE UKB CONSTITUTION 

unless the BIA fairly and non-prejudicially announces that ~ 

tribes MUST abolish dual memberships. 

Again, there exists ~ Secretarial/BIA-approved membership roll 

for the CNO nor any roll common to both the CNO and the UKB. 

ONLY THE UKB HAS A SECRETARIAL AND PIA-APPROVED TRIBAL ROLL. 

The=efore, there is not now nor has ever been a dual membership 

problem between the UKB and the CNO and NO need exists for a UKB 

c onst i tutional Ame ndment. The CNO arguments on the dual 
123 

Merritt 1oungdeer, Ar~a Direc~or 

BUREAU QF I~D AN AFFAI~S 

Jan u ary 3, 1994 

Page 3 

membersh:p e~=oll~en~ o£ the UKB and CNO are erroneous and 

ambiguous as well as fu ndamentally unsound. THE UKB, AS 1HE ONLY 

CHEROKEE TRIBAL ENTITY POSSESSING A TRIBAL ENROLLMENT PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, DOES CURRENTLY HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE ROLL OF 

7,600+ MEMBERS. 

s: r:c ere l y, 

.i'.TTEST: ) 1/;,~1 ,. ( ----, / r r \ - , tt. / • 

-;1£;~t:"Jtd JIMM1~ LOU -) WH1TEKILLER, . tfc.L. f 

Se_,_.ary 

;t.~ 

cc: 

Secreta=y of the Interior Bruce Babbitt 

Assistant S-ecretary Ada Deer 

Senate Inouye, Chairman, Se:1ate Committee on 

Ind an Affa i :::s 

Debora Madd ox, Acting Director, Office of Tribal Services 
124 

l"nited States Department of che Interior 

~ ":F.P!..Y":EE~ ~C 

Tribal Government Ser•:ices - TR 

#4473 

:VIr. John Ross 

l" nited K.:~~oowJh Band \)f 

Cilerokce Indians :n Ok:an<lma 

P 0 Box 7-+6 

T Jhicquah. Oklahom:.t -: -+-l-65-0';" .!6 

De:Jr :VIr. Ross: 

Thank you for your ktter t1f :\"m,.ember 15. 1993. under :h.: Fre:!:.il:m 1)f Inr'ormation Act requcsr. · .. m 

behalf ot the Cnned Keemowah Band ot C1erckce Indians m Okbncme1 ICKBl regardmg stateme~rs h 

~.lr. Dennis \Vicklitle to the :Vbdison Clun~; Record ne·.vspaoer. Y,:ur kner has been referred :o "ur 

office for response. 

We have been advised by :Vluskogee Aree1 Ofrice IAree1 Ottice) staff thm although the Bureau oi Indian 

Affairs (B!A) does not recognize those elected to the position oi Chiet. Assistant Chief or Treasurer. rhey 

do recognize the secretary and the use of a chairman protem to conduct UKB business. Therefore. the 

CKB <.ices have a viable governing body in place. 

We have been further advised that the Ll<B has approximately 3,000 members who are not enroiled with 

the Cherokee Nation and is working towards separating its membership from the Cherokee Nation by 

amending its constitution. This amendment would prohibit dual membership and require those members 

who are also enroiled with the Cherokee Nation to relinquish that membership. 

The separation of membership would also help acquire separate funding for services to the UKB 

me::nbe::shlp. Tb.:!re 'l.'C~!d be a d.h;ti!!ct !:e~:i~e papulation 2.!ld the UKB members would 'lOt !!.ave to 

receive services through the Cherokee Nation. 

Area Office staff was unaware that Mr. Wickliffe had talked to the newspaper or that he made these 

comments on behalf of the BIA until they were notified by Central 6ffice staff. We regret any 

inconvenience these comments may have caused. 

Sincerely, 

p.c•.ir~ Director, Office of Tribal Services 
125 

Cnired States Depanrnent of the Interior 

~l."R£.-\l: •JF :~·01.\.'i AFFAIRS 

Wa.shin~<!o . D.C. :!02-lO 

Tribai Go, :J:ue~t ~rvices - TR 

:--. ·:. John Ross 

L:med K~e:cow:lh 3and oi 

Cherokee [ndians oi Oklahoma 

P. 0. Box 7-+6 

T:lhiequah. Okiahoma i-465-0i-+6 

Deli Mr. Ross: 

On September 13. 1993. we acknowledged receipt of your Aug!ISt 10, 1993, Freedom of 

rniormation Act request. and said we would respond at a later date. We regret the delay in 

following-up on that request. Our research took longer than anticipated, 

You have requested information on 14 items. We will respond on those points in the order 

presented in your lener. 

I . A copy of the official and authenticated Charter and Constitution of the Cheroktt Nation 

of Oklahoma (CNO) adopted under the terms of the Oklaho1111J lmlian Welfarr Ad of 1936 

(0/WA), and under the lmlian Reorgani7JIIio11 Act of 1934 (lRA), 111 the 0/WA pro'lilks 

that provinons·of the IRA shaU apply w Oklahoma tribes after 1936. 

No OIW A or I:RA constitution was adopted. The Constitution of the Cherokee Nation 

of Oklahoma was adopted on June 26, i976, and approved by the Commissioner of 

Indian Affairs on September S, 1975. A copy is eoclosed. 

2. Documentlltion showing it Will the intent of the Co1llllliuUiner to qprovt the 1975 draft 

CNO constitution 111 draft Constitution within the mttming of lRA of 1934 111 it applies w 

Oklahoma Indian Tribes through the 0/WA of 1936, to be mbmilttd w approved CNO 

voters in a Federal~ election comporting with the terms of lRA of 1934. 

We are not aware of any documentation on this matter. 

86-834 95-5 
126 

3 . . -\ny doc:.menred col!gressional action that supersedes the 1936 .-\~t's requirement that the 

Cherokee .Varian of Oklahoma reorgani:e under the terms af OilY.-\ and of IRA in order 

to relie1·e itself of continuing congressional restrictions on its exercise of inherent 

sovereignr:.·, and any departmental decerminarion of clze e.rtelll to which the Cherokee 

.Varian of Oklahoma may exercise "inherent so.-ereignt:.• ". as diminished under earlier 

legislation, ~ by means or reorgani::.ing under the 1936 and 1934 Acts. 

w~ are ~naware or any documenuuion on rhis mane~ . 

.l .4ny documentation showing that the 1947 .-\ct (requiring that Cherokee descendency be 

determined through descendency from eire 1907 Cherokee Da:ves Commission Roll), no 

longer applies. for rhe purposes of Cherokee .Varian (under the 6 September I 839 

Constirurion. and the Act of 1906) and .;j Cherokee .\'arion oj Oklahoma (as of the current 

Conscirution). 

We are unaware oi anv docume:rm:on on rh rs :natter. The Cherokee Nation oi 

Oklahoma (Cherokee Narion) reorganized pursuam ro irs inherem sovereign authoriry. 

5. Any .-\ct of Congress, or the Department's written determination, if any, allowing the 

Cherokee .Varian of Oklahoma to add to or amend the 1907 Cherokee Dawes Commission 

Roll, or to adopt a Tribal Roll without a valid C.VO OllVAi/RA conscirutional provision 

providing for such adoption. · 

We are unaware of any documenrarion on this · mauer. The Cherokee Narion 

reorganized pursuant to irs inherent sovereign authority. 

6. Any departmental determination, consistent with the approved Constitu!Wn of Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma, and the Secretary's determination in the afjinrullive Federal 

recognilion case of the Sqn Juan Soutbem Paiute Tribe in 1989, that the Cherokee Nation 

of Oklahoma Tribal Council hils approved the Cherokee Nation of Oklohoma Tribal Roll 

and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has a cwnnt Tribal RoU willlin the meanilrg of 

Federal-Indian law; also, lillY deplll'tiMntlll detmaiaation thai, whik both the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in OkiDhoma 

(UKB) hare separate cwnnt tribal roUs (assuming Cherokee Nation of Oklaho1114 as a 

crqrmt roU within the mmjag ofFedua/-Indian law I, that the two trilns have a common 

Base RoU, either by common choice, mutual agreement, Act of Congress, or administrative 

override of the determination of the Band that the Base Roll of the UKB shall be the 1949 

Base RoU as amended on 16 March 1985. 

We are not aware of a Bureau of Indian Affairs' approved roll. 
127 

Any written justification of special treatment for the Creek Tribal Towns of the Jluskogee 

Creek .Vution, who were exempted from appliclllion of the 1980 Gerard letter regardilzg 

separate services, as cited in Jlr. Ronald Eden's testimony, recaiUng that he said. "we 

stoned out changing the policy because of another tribal issue; namely, that the Creek 

tow/Is did not want to continue rtceMng their services from the Creek .Vation. " 

Bv his November 30. 1989. memorandum to the Muskogee Area Direcior. Assistant 

S~cretarv - Indian Affairs Eddie F. Brown. rescind~d the Januarv 16_ 1980. 

Forest Gerard memorandum requiring these three tribal towns. Alabama-Quassate. 

Kialegee and Thlopthlocco. m receiYe their funding and services through the Creek 

:"--ation. .-\ copy is enclosed. 

:l. Ally 1980 •Jr other deparrmenral dete!7nination srating: 

There is 1101 justifica/iQn for concracts and/or grants with C.:KB 10 provide the same 

sen·ices to chose portion of the Cherokee Nlllion that would be served under the 

.Varian's ~oncracts and/or grants. 

We are not aware of any documentation on this matter. 

9. .-\ny evidence that. in preparing Assistant Secretary Brown's or Ron Eden's testimony, or 

in addressing the concerns of Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller, the Department ever 

reviewed the files concerning the organi.:JliWn of the UKB, or its quarterly or final repons 

or other correspondence regarding the UKB Enrollment Update project, 25 November 198-J 

- 16 March 1985 to determine whether the two tribes share a common base roU, or that 

the L'KB utterly or substantially failed to meets ils contractual obligaiWns under that grant. 

There is no wrinen documentation establishing tbat these actions were taken. 

10. A copy of the Department's file copy of the IJgg_ that Acting Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior far lndilln A/fain Ron Eden sent to the UKB on 24 August 1992 confirming the 

Band's autonomy, separate recogniJWn, and independent eUgibilily for services and trust 

land acquisition. 

You received a copy of this letter on August 26, 1993, wben the UKB delegation met 

with Department of the Interior's (Department) staff in Washington, D.C. A copy is 

enclosed for your convenience. 

II. Any departmental authorimtion or Ftrification of the claims of Principal Chief Mankiller, 

in letters she sent to gorernors of the United SIIIU:s during JQlluary 1993, cha.rru:terizing 

the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee I!UliaiJs in Oklahoma liS Q1l unrrcogniud group, 

pretending to be lndillns, and deserving only to avGil themselves of the 25 C.F.R. 83 

process to clarify their status. 

No documentation exis!S. The UKB is a federally recognized tribe. 

- 3 -
128 

" .-tny departmental finding indicaring that the CXB is digible to avail itself of the 

2j C.F.R. 83 proczss to clarify its status, or chat any cntz;;ressional mandate requires it 

to do sn. .-lre we terminated. or not? 

:\.s stated in :'-lumber ll. the UKB is a federally recognizee tribe. and. t:herer'ore. is nm 

terminated. The UKB does nm need :o use the process :n ~5 C.F.R. Pan 83. [t is 

included in the list of tribes deveiopd under Pan 83. We are enclosing a copy or the 

"Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Ser•:ices From the United States 

Bureau oi Indian Aifairs" . as published in the FEDER.~L REGISTER on October~ 1. 

1993. by the Department. The UKB is listed on page 5_.368. 

I 3 . ..l.ny documented effort of 1/re Department to darifr vr correct its testimony to Congress. 

in the JOist or present Congress. as presented hy .\{r. Ron Eden to .'vir. Aucoin ·s 

Committee. and em_\' dowmeilted plan :o restore the ser.·ice eligibility of the UKJJ under 

the present administrarion. 

We are unaware oi any documentation on this matter. 

~ . . 4ny Departmental imerpretarion as to the extent and durarion A.mendment 86 in 

H.R.JOI-16 (1992) in the contemplarion of Congress. 

We are unaware oi any exiting interpretations oi the appropriations language. This 

languages states. "That until such time as legislation is enacted ro !.he contrary, none 

of t:he funds appropriated in this or any other Act for t:he benefit of Indians residing 

wit:hin the jurisdictional service area of the Cherokee :-iation shall be expended by any 

other than the Cherokee Nation, nor shall any funds be used to take land into crust 

within the boundaries of t:he original Cherokee territory in Oklahoma without t:he 

consent of the Cherokee Nation:· . 

We hope we have adequately addressed your concerns. If we can be of further assistance, ple:!Se 

advise. 

Sincerely. 

~\'"' Director, Office of Tribal Services 

Enclosures 
129 

VN1TED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIA.~S IN OKL\HOM.\ P.O. BOX 746 TAKUQUAH. OKlAHOMA 74466-0746 

JOf-1:'; ROSS 

CHIEF 

Jl." HE:-ISON ASSIST.\l'n' CHIE< 

TALXING POINTS 

TELEPHONE: (918! 456-0491 (918) 456-0462 

JI:'IIMIE I..Ot.: WHI'I'i:A:l..!.ER 

SECRETARY 

NOR.'IA JEA.'I FOL"RKII..U:R 

TJU:..\St 11ER 

I) Federal legislation greatly diainished the inherent sovereignty 

of Cherokee Nation, leaving certa1n, priaarily administrative functions 

intact (1890-1906 ) , under the direct supervision of the President and his 

agent. generally the Secretary of the Interior. References to the 

'dissolut1on' of the Cherokee Nation govern.ent appeared in the history 

and in the language of certain legislation. The govern.ent was essentially dissolved. with the exception of certain residual powers, on 4 March 1906 . 

2) Hav1ng tailed at efforts to keep a tribally-elected, rather 

than presidentlally-appointed. Cherokee govern.ent in force. the 

Xeetoowaha realized that they were on their own, and resolved to rely on their original governmental for.. the foundations of which they brought 

with thea to Oklahoaa . Keetoowah Society, Inc. , in anticipation of the 

eventual dissolut1on of the Cherokee Nation, acquires a Federal Cbarter 

(20 sept.aber 1905; see 24 April 1944 deter.ination of D'Arcy McNiCkle, 

Tribal Relations Branch). 

3) Subsequent Federal legislation restored certain aspects of the 

inherent sovereignty of Cherokee Nation, dealing with administrative 

functions, in order to protect residual property interests (1906-1930s). 

4) Acting Solicitor Frederic L. Kirgis found the Keetoowah Society 

ineligible to reorganize under OIWA and IRA. (Opinions of the Solicitor of 

the DePartment of the Interior Relating tg Indian Atfaira; 1917-1974, 

Vol. I (Wash1ngton. D. C.; U.S . Departaent of the Interior, 1975), p . 774; Opinion. Keetogwah -- Organization as a land 29 July 1937) 

5) The Depart-nt of the Interior found the Cherokee Mation, 

organized under the revised 6 Septeaber 1839 Constitution, 1 govern.ent 

essentially dissolved in 1906. to be ineligible as such to reorganise under OIWA and IRA. Field investigators found Cberok .. citiaena, with the 

ezception of the Keetoowahs, have abandoned tribal relations and have no interest in reorganization.{ME!1Q TO INDIAN ORGAlfiZATIQH, 25 OCtober 1937, 

from Director of Lands (WOW) to Daiker, Indian Organization (enclosure 

1310901 J I 

-----'-------- CO\JNCU. MEMBERS 

AUnGAN s~cu: 

CA.'IIADIAN DISTRJC"!' 

DC.'I&A SUE HOUA'"D 

COOWEESCOOWEL DJSTRIC"!' 

ADAI.L'"E SMml 

DEU. WAll£ DISTRICT 

JIM PROCI'OII 

nJ!'I!' DISTIIIC"I' 

RICHAIID MA.''US 

COL'iCSSAXE DISTRICT 

St:SAN ADAIR 

ILUSOIS DISllUCT 

'RESPECT FOR OL'R UDEJIS• 

CIWIUEBIRD SEQUOY All DIST!UCT 

JIIOSE Kll.u:R 

TAHLEQt:AII DIST!UCT 
130 

6) The Keetoowah Society, Inc . . and other Keetoowah factions. 

atarted organization work under the supervision of A. c. Monahan. 

Regional Coordinator for Organization at Five Civilized Tribes Agency. 

upon the discovery that indeed the Keetoowah Indians had a basis for 

claiming historical existence as a recognized polity at Indians, August 

1939. Investigators later find Kirgis was ignorant of the existence of 

the 20 Septeaber 1905 Keetoowah Society, Inc . Federal Corporate Charter, 

and ita legal effect. In a determination of 24 April 1944, Tribal 

Relations Branch officer D 'Arcy McNickle categorically repudiated the 

Kirgis Opinion, and in a meeting on 5 June 1944 with BIA Chief Counsel 

Ted Haas, agreed that rather than simply ask the Solicitor to rescind the 

old Opinion and submit another. that the Department would recommend to the Secretary and Congress that Congress pass legislation to clarify the 

atatus of the Keetoowah Indians. thereby allowing the Band to recr;anize 

under OIWA and IRA. 

7) Congress. on the advice of the Acting Secretary and other 

agencies, passed the 10 August 1946 Act acknowledging the UKB ' s eligibility to reorganize under OIWA and IRA . The legislative intent and atatute itself contemplate recognition of a united entity, initially a coalition government. 

8) UKB reorganized under OIWA and IRA, adopting a Charter. 

Constitution and By-laws in a Federal secretarial election on 3 October 

1950, and proceeded to function with virtually no Federal assistance as a federally-acknowledged tribe. The Charter provided for the eventual 

recognition by sub-charter of any other Cherokee descendant group with 

whom its own members are allowed to share membership , at the discretion 

of the ttKB Council. During Termination. the BIA refused to cooperate with 

every development proposal in keeping with the OIWA and IRA that the UKB 

Tribal Council submitted. 

9) After 1960, the BIA and Cherokee Nation or Tribe investigated 

the poasibility of establishing services and programa for Cherokees in 

the 14 county region, formerly Cherokee Nation, concluding that the only 

possible solution was to make the UKB the vehicle for providing programs and recognition. 

10) Once Cherokee tribal programs were off the ground, the UKB had 

little success retaining control of the very programs they fostered, and even access to services. Independent ventures failed as well, partly due to the (documented) collusion of their own legal counsel. Earl Boyd Pierce, with BIA and CNO officials to stop the UKB. 

11) The Act of Oct. 22, 1970, 9lst Cong., 2nd Seas., P. L. 91-495, 

84 Stat. 1091 (1970), the Bellmen Bill, 'Authoriz(ed] Each of the Five 

Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma to~ Their Principal Officer .... • Federal court challenges determined that the presidentially or aecretarially - appointed Principal Chiefs of Cherokee Nation aince 1906 were bona fide heads of state. Other litigation addressed the question 

whether tbe Cherokee government was terminated in 1906. On 2 October 

1975, Comaissioner Morria Thompson and Principal Chief Ross 0. Swimmer 

approved a draft CNO Constitution determining that the automatic 

citizenship class shall consist of the Cherokee Dawes Commission 

enrollees, and that descendants shall be eligible for registration as member-descendants. 

12) Commissioner Louis Bruce , in American Indian TribeS and their 

Federal Relationship. Plus a Partial Listing of other United States 

Indian Groups (Wash •• D. c.: U.S. Dept . of Interior. BIA, March, 1972) 

declared that the UKB is a fully recognized Class 1 OIWA/IRA tribal 

entity. while Cherokee Nation remained an unorganized Class 3 service OOOU!i'l~i~Y'! . 
131 

13) On 5 July 1976, Cherokee voters adopted the draft Constitution , purporting to supersede the 1906 constitution, but CNO leaders claim in 

Federal court that the old Constituti on was dead in 1906, or that the 

present government is the full successor to the 1839 - 1906 government , as circumstances demand. The 1976 Constitution purported to sanction 

affiliation of any CNO registree with any 'clan' or other subordinate 

entity within CNO. The Harjo case determined that the 1906 and related 

Acts did not terminate the Five Tribes as such, and that the 1936 Act 

assured them the enjoyment of their inherent sovereignty, as a general 

principal . That case did not consider or discuss the 25 October 1937 Land 

Division determination regarding the eligibi lity of Cherokee Nation to avail itself of the benefits of OIWA and IRA. or contain any reference to the int ent of Congress. the BIA and the UKB regarding the implications of 

UKB reorganization. No provision at Federal case law, and no Act of 

Congress. allowed CNO to avail i tself of the benefits of OIWA and IRA 

reorganization free of the duty of actually taking the steps to reorganization . 

14 ) In the Federal Register. Vol. 44, No. 26, Tuesday February 6 . 1979 , pp . 7235-7236 , the Secretary of the Interior listed the UKB as a federally-recognized . service-eli gible entity. The Department has since 

characteri zed this and similar publ i cations as binding determinations of 

the Department regarding the recogni tion of tribes, both in Federal 

litigation and in congressional hear ings . 

15) Characterizing the organization of federally-acknowledged 

tribes listed in the 6 February 1979 Federal Register notice , on 20 

November 1979, Ms. Patricia Simmons, Tribal Relations Specialist , submitted to the Chief, Branch of Tribal Relations, a detailed report 

titled, 'Organi zational Status of Federally Recognized Indian Entities.• 

Simmons surveyed a category (p . 2) of "Officially Approved Organizations 

Pursuant to Statutory Authority (Indian Reorganization Act: Oklahoma 

Indian Welfare Act ; and Alaska Native Act), finding (p. 3), UKB had a Council organized under a Federal Corporate Charter. Cherokee Nation 

(with a Council ) was listed iln the 'Other• category of 'Officially 

Approved Organizations Outside of Specific Statutory Authority,' (p.7). 

16) Principal Chief of Cherokee Nation Ross 0 . Swimmer denied UKB's 

historical existence for the first time of record to Oklahoma Senator 

Henry Bellman, in a Letter. 27 April 1979 . Swimmer claimed the UKB was •created' by the accidental inclusion of their name in the 6 February 

1979 Federal Register notice; see also . 30 April 1979. Principal 

Chief of Cherokee Nation Ross 0 . Swimmer to Oklahoma Senator David Boren, 

denying UKB ' s historical existence . 

. Siqn~d (j;;/1l;L 't: ~GUST17, 1993 . . J 1mm 1 e u W~iteki er, 

Secretary, 

Unite:d· Xeetoololah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahomil, 

a Federally-recognized Indian Tribe 
132 

TALKING POIK'l'S 

1) Federal legislation gr eat ly diminished the inherent sovereignty 

of Cherokee Nation, leaving certain , pri marily administrative functions 

intact (1890-1906), under the direct supervision of the President and his 

agent. generally the Secretary of the Interior. References to the 

'dissolution• of the Cherokee Nation government appeared in the history 

and in the language of certa i n legislation . The government was essentially dissolved. with the exception of certain residual powers , on 4 March 1906 . 

2) Having failed at efforts to keep a tribally- elected, rather 

than presidentially-appointed. Cherokee government 1n force, the 

Keetoowahs realized that they were on their own , and resolved to rely on their original governmental form , the foundations of which they brought 

with them to Oklahoma . Keetoowah Society, Inc. , in anticipation of the 

eventual dissolution of the Cherokee Nation. acquires a Federal Charter 

(20 September 1905 ; see 24 April 1944 determinati on of D' Arcy Mc~ickle , 

Tribal Relations Branch). 

3) Subsequent Federal legislation restored certain aspects of the 

inherent sovereignty of Cherokee Nation , dealing with administrative 

functions, in order to protect residual propert y interests (1906-1930s) . 

4) Acting Solicitor Frederic L. Kirgis found the Keetoowah Society 

ineligible to reorganize under OIWA and IRA.(Opinions of the Solicitor of 

the Department of the Interior Relating to Indian Affairs: 1917-1974 , Vol. I (Washington, D. C. : U. S . Department of the Interior, 1975), p . 774; Opinion, Keetoowah -- Organization as a Band 29 July 1937) 

5) The Department of the Interior found the Cherokee Nation, 

organized under the revised 6 September 1839 Constitution, a government 

essentially dissolved in 1906, to be ineligible as such to reorganize 

under OIWA and IRA. Field investigators found Cherokee citizens, with the 

axception of the Keatoowahs, have abandoned tribal relations and have no interest in reorganization. [MEMO TO INDIAN ORGANIZATION, 25 October 1937 . from Director of Lands (WOW) to Daiker, Indian Organization (enclosure 

1310901)] 

6) The Keetoowah Society, Inc. , and other Kaetoowah factions. 

started organization work under the supervi sion of A. c. Monahan , Regional Coordinator for Organizati on at Five Civilized Tribes Agency, upon the discovery that indeed the Keetoowah Indians had a basis for 

claiming historical existence as a recognized polity of Indians, August 

1939. Investigators later find l<i rgis was ignorant of the existence of 

the 20 September 1905 l<eetoowah Society, Inc . Federal Corporate Charter, 

and 1 ts legal effect. In a determination of 24 April 1944, Tribal 

Relations Branch officer D' Arcy McNickle categorically repudiated the 

Kirgis Opinion , and in a meeting on 5 June 1944 with BIA Chief Counsel 

Ted Haas, agreed that rather than s i mply ask the Solicitor to rescind the 

old Opinion and submit another, that the Department would recommend to the Secretary and Congress that Congress pass legislation to clarify the 
133 

T 

status of the Keetoowah Indians. thereby allowing the Band to reorganize 

under OIWA and IRA . 

7) Congress, on the advice of the Acting Secretary and other 

agencies, passed the 10 August 1946 Act acknowledging the UKB ' s eligibility to reorganize under OIWA and IRA. The legislative intent and 

statute itself contemplate recognition of a united entity, initially a 

coalition government . 

8) UKB reorganized under OIWA and IRA. adopting a Charter, 

Constitution and By-laws in a Federal secretarial election on 3 October 

1950 , and proceeded to function with virtually no Federal assistance as 

a federally-acknowledged tribe . The Charter provided for the eventua l 

recogniti on by sub- c harter of any other Cherokee descendant group with · 

whom i ts own members are allowed to share membership, at the discretion of the UKB Council. During Termination, the BIA refused to cooperate with 

every development proposal in keeping with the OIWA and IRA that the UKB 

Tribal Council submitted. 

9) After 1960 , the BIA and Cherokee Nation or Tribe investigated 

the possibil i ty of establishing services and programs for Cherokees in 

the 14 county region , formerly Cherokee Nation, concluding that the only 

possible solution was to make the UKB the vehicle for providing programs and recogn1 tion. 

10) Once Cherokee tribal programs were off the ground, the UKB had 

little success retaining control of the very programs they fostered, and even access to services. Independent ventures failed as well , partly due 

to the (documented) collusion of their own legal counsel, Earl Boyd 

Pierce , with BIA and CNO officials to stop the UKB. 

11 ) The Act of Oct . 22, 1970, 9lst Cong . , 2nd Sess., P. L. 91-495, 84 Stat . 1091 (1970) , the Bellman Bill, "Authoriz(ed] Each of the Five 

Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma to Select Their Principal Officer . . . . • 

Federal court challenges determined that the presidentially ·- or 

secretarially - appointed Principal Chiefs of Cherokee Nation since 1906 

were bona fide heads of state . Other litigation addressed the question 

whether the Cherokee government was terminated in 1906. On 2 October 

1975 , Commissioner Morris Thompson and Principal Chief Ross 0. Swimmer 

approved a draft CNO Constitution determining that the automatic 

citizenship class shall consist of the Cherokee Dawes Commission 

enrol l ees, and that descendants shall be eligible for registration as 

member - descendants . 

12) Commissioner Louis Bruce, in American Indian Tribes and their 

Federal Relationship Plus a Partial Listing of other United States 

Indian Groups (Wash .. D. C. : U. S. Dept. of Interior, BIA, March, 1972) declared that the UKB is a fully recognized Class 1 OIWA/IRA tribal 

entity , while Cherokee Nation remained ~ unorganized Class 3 service 

population. 
134 

'T 

13 ) On 5 July 1976, Cherokee voters adopted the draft Const itution, 

purporting to supersede the 19 06 constitution, but CNO leaders claim in 

Federal court that the old Constitution was dead in 1906, or that the 

present government is the full successor to the 1839 - 1906 government , as circumstances demand . The 1976 Constitution purported to sanct ion 

affiliation of any CNO registree with any "clan" or other subordi nate entity within CNO . The Harjo case determined that the 1906 and related 

Acts did not terminate the Five Tribes as such, and that the 1936 Act assured them the enjoyment of their inhe r e nt sovereignty. as a genera l 

principal . That case did not consider or discuss the 25 October 1937 Land 

Divisi on determinat ion regarding the eligibility of Cherokee Nation to 

avail itself of the benefits of OIWA and IRA. or contain any reference to the intent of Congress, the BIA and the UKB regarding the implications of UKB reorganization . No provisi on at Federal case law, and no Act of 

Congress, allowed CNO to avail itself of the benefits of OIWA and IRA 

reorganization free of the duty of actually taking the steps to reorgani~ation. 

14) In the Federal Reg i st e r, Vol . 44 , No. 26, Tuesday February 6 , 1979 , pp. 7235-7236 , the Secretary of the Interi or listed the UKB as a federally-recogni zed, service-el i gi ble entity. The Department has since 

characterized this and similar publications as binding determinati ons of 

the Department regarding the recognition of tribes, both in Federal 

litigation and in congressional hearings. 

15) Characterizing the organization of federally-acknowledged 

tribes listed in the 6 February 1979 Federal Register notice, on 20 

November 1979, Ms. Patricia Simmons, Tribal Relations Specialist, 

submitted to the Chief, Branch of Tribal Relations, a detailed report 

titled, •organizational Status of Federally Recognized Indian Entities." 

Simmons surveyed a category (p . 2 ) of "Officially Approved Organizations 

Pursuant to Statutory Authority (Indian Reorganization Act: Oklahoma 

Indian Welfare Act; and Alaska Native Act), finding (p. 3), UKB had a Council organized under a Federal Corporate Charter. Cherokee Nation 

(with a Council) was listed iin the "Other" category of "Officially 

Approved Organizations Outside of Specific Statutory Authority,• (p.7). 

16) Principal Chief of Cherokee Nation Ross 0. Swimmer denied UKB's 

historical existence for the first time of record to Oklahoma Senator 

Henry Bellmen, in a ~- 27 April 1979. Swimmer claimed the OKB was •createdR by the accidental inclusion of their name in the 6 February 

1979 Federal Register notice ; see also Letter, 30 April 1979, Principal 

Chief of Cherokee Nation Ross o . Swimmer to Oklahoma Senator David Boren, 

denying UKB's historical existence. 
135 

B 

A BRIEF UKB CHRONOLOGY 

PRECONTACT TO 1730s: Ani-gi-du- wah -g i, the Keetoowah People , f i nd 

their source at Keetoowah, a Mother Tribal Town in Swain County , No r t h 

Carolina, and its affiliated smaller towns . Po litical succession pro cee ded 

through elected Captains, a Chief , a nd Beloved Women . 

1730s TO REMOVAL : Despi te cul tural and political disruption betwe en 

the American Revolution and the Removal period , the Keetoowah Indians retained what they could of their primary rules and ways . They enforced laws 

through customary sanctions and the law of blood, maintaining their own local tradition despite major changes in general Cherokee society. The Keetoowah 

Indians were part of the core Red / War groups who had a l lied with the Frenc h . 

Some began to move to what became Arkansas territory as earl y as the e nd of 

the Seven Year War in 1763. The Keetoowa hs who all i ed with the Bri tish duri n g 

the Revolution joined that f i rst wave of emigrant Keetoowahs. The 

Chickamaugas followed after their attack on a wh i te trading party at Mus c le 

Shoals, Tennessee River , in 1794. They all settled among the West ern 

Cherokees (Old Settlers). The U. S. offi cially recognized Western Cherok ee 

Tribal Council and t h eir terri tory in 1817 . Other Keetoowahs followed , f i rst 

to Arkansas and then to Indian Territory . By 1819 , they numbered about 6 , 00 0. 

The U. S. Supreme Court established some of the most important case law 

regarding Cherokee Nation during this period: 

Cherokee Nation v. Georgi a, 30 U. S . (5 Pet. ) 1 (1831 ). 

Worcester v. Georgia 31 U. S . ( 6 Pet. ) 515 ( 1832 ) . 

18 38-1839, FORCED REMOVAL TO ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA: The remnants o f the 

War Party in the eastern states were too weak to oppose structural changes i n 

Cherokee government. As removal of the Eastern Emigrants proceeded, t he 

Keetoowah Indians lived as they always had , relying on subsistence 

agriculture , fishing and hunting, practi cing the old religion, maintaining 

social cohesiveness at various towns in Cherokee territory , with gatheri ngs 

and daily interactions across factional and family lines . The Western and 

Eastern Cherokees were forced to form a coalition government under a 

Constitution dated 6 September 1839·. John Ross (Chief from 1828-1866 ) 

maintained support from the Keetoowah traditionals because of his opposition 

to removal and his marriage to a fullblood . 

1838 to 1860 , KEETOOWAH REORGANIZATION IN OKLAHOMA : Knowing that Civil 

War would threaten their government and society, and committed to honori ng 

treaties with the U. S. , Keetoowahs reorganized under a Constitution written 

by a fullblood Cherokee Baptist Minister, Budd Gritts (1858-1859). Followers 

of the Jones family (non-Indian church leaders) also were instrumental in the 

reorganization of the Keetoowahs in the 1850s. Starting from a base of born 

Keetoowahs, the band drew in and adopted fullbloods from all nine Districts, 

but primarily from a region composing five northeastern Oklahoma counties 

today. Called the Keetoowah Society, they revived the role their Mother Town 

of Keetoowah enjoyed in pre-contact and pre-Removal historical times. Their 

leaders were ncaptains." under a Head Captain, or ~Chief " In 1857 , the War 

Department offered the town the military reservation of Fort Gibson, from 

which the Cherokee Counci 1 created the town of Keetoowah. The Cherokee 

Council voted to move the Capitol there from Tahlequah, but Chief Ross vetoed 

the plan. The Keetoowahs elected Louis Downing their Head Captain, and later 

helped him to victory as Principal Chief . 
136 

B 

2 

1860-1865, KEETOOWAH INDIANS IN THE CIVIL WAR: All loyal Keetoowahs 

opposed the Southern Confederacy and supported the Union. The Pin Indians, a 

particularly aggressi ve faction, fiercely resisted assimilation and invasion 

by all non-Indians. The Council of Keetoowah town ( Fort Gibson) met until 

May, 1863. Convening at Cowsk in Prairie that year, the Keetoowahs denounced t he Confederate Cherokees and celebrated the abolition of Slavery. While . the 

Keetoowah Indians remained loyal to the end of the Civil War, they shared the 

common humiliation of all Cherokees resulting from the punishment of Cherokee 

Nation for its official alliance with the Southern Confederacy . The 1866 

Treaty abrogated all others to the extent they were inconsistent, but the 

Keetoowah delegates to the Treaty convention reluctantly signed. 

1866-1890, UKB FACTIONALISM AND CONFLICT: Immediately after the Civil 

War, conflicts arose over the purposes and direction of the Keetoowah 

organiz ation. While some Keetoowahs wanted to preserve the ancient Keetoowah 

c ul ture . language and religion in pure form as possible, others preferred to 

amalgamate the old ways with aspects of non-Indian culture , including 

christianity. (The Cherokee Tobacco 78 U. S . 616 case was decided in 1871 .) 

The Keetoowahs elected Dennis Bushyhead as Principal Chief in 1879 and 1883. 

One pol itical party called itself the Keetoowah Party in 1879 in order to win 

fullblood votes. The Society lost controlling influence in tribal politics 

with the increase of intermarriage and the increasing influence of mixed- bloods. 

In 1887, the General Allotment Act (Dawes Severalty Act) authorized the 

allotment of t ribal lands to individual Indians and families. The Act did not 

apply to Cherokee Nation (24 Stat . 338, Sec. 339, 1887). The land of Cherokee 

Nation had to be allotted through an agreement in 1901, following actions of 

the u. s. to limit the sovereignty of Cherokee Nation. The 1889 Act 

established Federal courts in Indian territory, conferring limited civil 

jurisdiction on tribes, and criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes, 

excluding only Indian vs. Ind i an matters from Federal jurisdiction. The Act 

terminated certain of Cherokee Nation 1 s governmental powers over prescribed 

territories and over its citizens. In 1889, reacting to the threat of 

allotment, the political mission of the Society altered when a convention 

amended the 1859 Constitution to include both religious and sectarian 

functions , and to allow open meetings. All claimed to worship the same God, 

as Keetoowahs . 1890s to 1901 . PREPARATIONS FOR STATEHOOD; THE CHEROKEE AGREEMENT, AND 

THE DISSOLUTION OF INDIAN TERRITORY AND CHEROKEE NATION, AND ALLOTMENT: 

Congressional investigations from the 1870s forward confirmed widespread 

corruption in the Indian Service and the Five Tribes governments. Proponents 

of Oklahoma statehood pressed for elimination of the original ~ribal 

governments in the 1880s, seeking control of land, oil, and minerals. The 

1893 Act created the Five Tribes Commission to negotiate with the Five Tribes 

for extinguishment of tribal title in order to facilitate the creation of a 

state of Oklahoma in Indian Territory, and starting the allotment process. 

Proponents of an Indian State of Sequoyah lost. The 1895 Act extended 

Arkansas criminal laws over Indian territory, leaving intact exclusive tribal 

jurisdiction over tribal members. The 1897 Act conferred civil and criminal 

jurisdiction on the United States courts in the territory over all persons 

regardless of race, in addition to imposing the laws of Arkansas and the 

United States throughout Indian territory. The Five Tribes Commission 

concluded negotiations without the cooperation of the Five Tribes, making the 
137 

B 

3 

Curtis Act of 1898 inevitable. 

The Curtis Act (1898) forced the Five Tribes to allot their lands. This 

Act seriously and deliberately weakened the Five Tribes' governments. The Act 

granted territorial towns the right to establish municipal governments under 

the laws of Arkansas , rendered the civil laws of the tribes unenforceable in 

Federal courts, and abolished tribal courts. The Act prohibited payments by 

the United States to tribal officers for disbursement to tribal members. The 

Creek, Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes benefitted from the incorporation of 

provisions of tentative agreements with these tribes, providing that if the 

several agreements were ratified by these tribes, the provisions of the 

respective agreements would replace conflicting provisions of the Curtis Act. 

The Cherokee Nation had refused to negotiate a tentative agreement. and took 

the full body blow of the Curtis Act . Though all Keetoowahs opposed allotment origi nally, the Keetoowahs spl i t 

over how to handle the issue after Cherokee Nation's 31 January 1899 election on the Cherokee Agreement. The mixed-bloods of Cherokee· Nation won in the 

popular election to approve the agreement , and Congress ratified the it on 1 

March 1901 ( 31 Stat . 848). The agreement provided that Section 13 of the 

Curtis Act would not apply to Cherokee lands, and that "no Act of Congress or 

treaty provisions inconsistent with this agreement shall be in force in said 

nation" except Sections 14, 27 and 28 of the Curtis Act. These authorized the 

incorporation of towns. the location of Indian inspectors in Indian 

Territory, and abolished tribal courts . The Agreement did the following: 

1) Prescribed the manner of the allotment of all Cherokee land; 

2) Prescribed the manner of establishing town sites under the 

supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, including sale of town 

lots; 

3) Established schools; 

4) Continued the Cherokee Advocate newspaper; 

5) Reserved land for town sites, churches. cemeteries and the like ; 

6) In Section 58, provided that "The tribal government of the Cherokee 

Nation shall not continue longer than March 4, 1906, subject to such 

future legislation as Congress may deem proper;" 

7) Conferred U. s. citizenship upon Cherokees; 

8) In Section 72, provided that "Nothing contained in this agreement, 

however, shall be construed to revive or re-establish the Cherokee 

courts abolished by said last-mentioned Act of Congress (Curtis Act), or 

the authority of any officer, at any time, in any manner connected with 

said courts;" 

9) in Section 75, provided that "No act, ordinance, or resolution of 

the Cherokee national council in any manner affecting the lands of the tribe , or of individuals after allotment, or the moneys or other 

property of the tribe, or of the citizens thereof, except appropriations 

for the necessary incidental and salaried expenses of the Cherokee 

government as herein limited, shall be of any validity until approved by 

the President of the United States." 

This Agreement effectively placed the Cherokee Nation under the direct 

management of the United States. 

In November 1899, the Keetoowah Society convened in Tahlequah to pass resolutions critical of the Cherokee Council and the Dawes Conunission , 

particularly with regard to plans to dispose of Cherokee land and to create a roll without the consent of the Cherokee Nation. They challenged amendments 
138 

B 

to the Constitution, and resolved to enroll only under protest . The 

Keetoowahs in convention at Big Tucker Springs on 6 September 1901 decided to 

enroll with the Dawes Corrunission led to a final schism between Keetoowah 

factions. Redbird Smith left the meeting with eleven of his tradi tionalist 

supporters to resist enrollment a ctively, forming the Nighthawk Keetoowahs. 

Sev eral hundred Keetcowah Indians , including several groups that started 

out as members of the Keetoowah Soc i ety and left with the Nighthawks in 1901, 

coalesced to form a number of secretive, traditionalist, exclusive factions. 

Most o f these groups started near Gore, Vi an , or Proctor, and adjoining 

areas. These groups were nas cent within the Keetoowah Society as early as 

1893, and derived from Goingsnake fire or various of the Four Mothers Nation 

fires . Like the Nighthawks, these groups generally refused until 1910 or 

l ater t o ac c ept the work o f the Dawes Commission . 

While t hey fully intended to maintain tribal government and functions 

regardless of the fate of the Cherokee Nation, the Keetoowahs as a body 

offi cially acquiesced under protest to the effect of all the legislative 

provisions that would dissolve Cherokee Nation's government and allot 

Cherokee lands. They learned that they could not prevent the 1893 Act , the 

Dawes Commission enrollment, U . S . citizenship, the Curtis Act and the 

abolition of tribal courts, the Agreement with the Cherokee Nation of April 

I, 1900, the 1906 Act and the virtual political dissolution of the corrupt 

Cherokee government as of 4 March 1906, presidential approval for all tribal 

ordinances affecting tribal or individual lands after allotment, and the 

allotment in severalty of Cherokee lands. See Cherokee Nation v . Southern 

Kansas R. R. 135 U. S. 641 (1 890) and Cherokee Nat ion v. Journeycake, 155 U. 

s. 196 (1894). 

1901 TO 1906, THE FIVE TRIBES ACT , AND THE REORGANIZATION OF THE 

KEETOOWAH SOC IETY , INC. , THE CREATION OF THE NIGHTHAWK KEETOOWAHS , AND OTHER 

FACTIONS : During this period , the Keetoowah Indians lived throughout most of 

the old Cherokee districts, with the smallest constituencies in Cooweescoowee 

and Canadian Districts . The majority of the Keetoowah Indians later formed 

the political entity known as the Keetoowah Society, Inc., on 20 September 

1905, because they knew that the Cherokee Nation was about to dissolve for 

political and p r actical purposes, leaving Cherokee Nation with no other 

general representative government unless the Keetoowahs carried on as a 

political body . The Keetoowah Indians believed they had to resort to their earlier governmental forms. Usi ng a Federal Corporate Charter (20 September 

1905) from the Territorial District Court in Tahlequah, as the Keetoowah 

Society , Inc . , thi s fact i on functioned as a polity composed of a Chief and 

Counci I for the express purpose of carrying on the political and social 

functions of a Band. Because opposing factions like Redbird Smith's 

Nighthawks opposed any political organization they could not dominate, the 

Keetoowah Society, Inc., Inc., could not fully represent the interests of the 

Kee toowah Indians until they resolved such differences. Such a reconciliation 

was impossible until the Nighthawks resolved to be a religious and social 

organ i zat ion with no political interests. 

Robert Owen, head of the Union Agency of the Five Civilized Tribes, one 

of Oklahoma's first U. S. senators and a Cherokee descendant , presented a 

memorial for the Keetoowah Society, Inc. , at the Sequoyah Convention in 1905. 

He worked with attorney Frank Boudinot, the Keetoowahs' legal counsel after 

1896 and Secretary after 1901, to prosecuted claims against the U. S. in 

behalf of the Keetoowahs . The Keetoowah Society, Inc. , elected Frank Boudinot 
139 

B 

Chief of the Tribe in 1905 , but with no legal effect on Cherokee Nation 

except within the Keetoowah Society, Inc. Like the Nighthawk Keetoowahs and 

other Keetoowah factions, the Keetoowah Soc i ety, Inc., granted membership to 

some who were less than fullblood but who were socially and politically 

fullblood . 1906-1934, THE GROWTH OF THE KEETOOWAH GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PRIOR 

TO IRA: The Five Tribes Act of 1906 provided for final d isposition of the 

property and legal affairs of the Five Tribes, with special emphasis on the 

allotment process , and the establishment of municipalities in Indian 

Territory, clearing the way for stat ehood. The Act adopted language from 

vari ous of the agreements with the Five Tribes, and drastically limited the soverei gnty of Cherokee Nation: 

Section 11 [Tribal Taxes Abol ished) . Provided, That all taxes 

accruing under tribal laws or regulations of the Secretary of the 

Interior shall be abolished from and after December thirty-fi rst, 

nineteen hundred and five. but this provision shal l not prevent the 

collection a fter that date nor after dissolution of the tribal 

government of all such taxes due up to and including December t hirtyfirst, nineteen hundred and five , and all such taxes levied and 

collected after the thirty- first day of December , nineteen hundred and 

five, shall be refunded. 

Section 28 [Tribal Government Preserved to the Extent Not Terminated] . 

. . Provided, That the Tribal ex istence and present tribal governments 

of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek and Seminole tri bes or 

nations are continued in full force and effect for all purposes 

authori zed by law, until otherwise provided by law . ... but the tribal 

council or legislature in any of sai d tribes or nations shall not be in 

sessi on for a longer period than thirty days in any one year; Provided , 

That no act , ordinance, or resolution (except resolutions o f 

adjournment) of the tribal council or legislature of any of said tribes 

or nations shall be of any validity until approved by the President of 

the United States; Provided further, That no contract involving the 

payment of expenditure of any money or affecting any property belonging 

to any of said tribes or nations made by them or any of them or by any 

officer thereof, shall be of any validity until approved by the 

President of the United States. 

The Cherokee Nation still had a special trust relationship with the Federal 

government, and had not been terminated in the sense that tribes were during 

the 1950s. Congress expressly extended the existence of the Cherokee Nati on , 

and intended that members could elect to continue its functions, or abandon 

tribal relations as they saw fit. The Cherokee Tribe retained on paper the 

basi c powers necessary to carry on self-government , including the right to 

choose a form of government and select representatives, and to d i sburse 

assets. 

However, Cherokee Nation ,s members d i d not choose to carry out these 

functions, and abandoned virtually all the governmental activities the Act 

allowed them to preserve . The presidentially-appointed Principal Chief 

constituted the sol e Cherokee government. By the 1930s, the Department found 

no extant functional Cherokee Nation government, but only a shell , consisti ng 

of the presidentially-appointed Principal Chief, whose main function was to 

sign papers disposing of Cherokee assets. Also, after all the legislation of 

the 1890s to 1907 , congressional limitations on Cherokee Nation ' s soverei gnty 
140 

B 

6 

far outweighed the retained attributes. 

After 1907, the Nighthawk Keetoowah Society, in true sectarian spirit, 

named itself the "Original Keetoowah Society," based on the prophetic 

insights of several of the leaders. John Smith, son of Redbird Smith, and 

would-be prophet. continued to issue prophetic utterances in this vein 

throughout his life , long after the Nighthawks had adopted an official stance 

that they were not a political organization: 

This is the original Kee-Too-Wah Society .... Any other organization 

or body functioning or claiming representation· under the name of the 

Kee-Too-Wah Society are fictitious and impostors.(26 May 1937) 

John Smith, the most influential Nighthawk leader among Redbird Smith's sons, 

had lost virtually all credibility among Keetoowahs by the 1930s due to his 

disastrous support of the Oneida con artist Chester Polk Cornelius. Cornelius 

nearly destroyed the Nighthawk organization with failed get-rich-quick 

development schemes that left many members landless and destitute. Some 

Nighthawk spokesmen and leaders now erroneously claim the UKB is a splinter 

of their religious cult, though the Nighthawks officially withdrew from all 

political activity after 1901 , and barred its members from affiliating with 

any other groups or entities, including christian churches. As the number of 

tribal towns associated with the Nighthawks dwindled from 21 in about 1900 to 

3 in 1937, the remnants of the "non-political" Nighthawk faction eventually 

collapsed into a variety of factions. These included two ceremonial grounds 

run by opposing factions of Redbird Smith ' s own family at Redbird's and at 

Stokes Smith's grounds. as well as the Goingsnake "Seven Clans" fire, the 

Medicine Springs Fire or Medicine Society, and the Four Mothers Nation. 

Other Cherokee political factions arose among the Keetoowahs, partly due 

to concerns about potential claims, partly to organize formally as a 

federally-recognized Tribe: the Cherokee Emigrant Indians, the Cherokee 

Immigrant Indians. and the Eastern and Western Emigrants. These factions of 

Oklahoma Keetoowah Cherokees by blood pulled together a coalition from the 

northern 14 counties of Oklahoma between 1920 and 1924, electing a Chief 

(Levi Gritts), and an Executive Council of Cherokees by Blood out of the body 

of the Keetoowah Society, Inc. During the 1930s, the majority of Keetoowah 

factions, now without any support of the dwindling Nighthawk separatists. 

supported the idea of reorganizing all the Keetoowah Cherokees in all the old 

clan districts as a united Band under the proposed Indian Reorganization Act. 

The Cherokees by Blood. representing all Cheroke~ descendants rather than 

Keetoowahs alone, failed in 1932 to obtain standing as a party to the 

Cherokee claims litigation. However, the Keetoowahs persisted as a political 

body apart from the Cherokees by blood. 

1934-1937, THE IRA: The Land Division in the Department of the Interior 

concluded in 1934 that , unlike the other Five Tribes, Cherokee Nation was 

neither interested in reorganizing , nor capable of doing so. Unlike the other 

Five Tribes, Cherokee Nation had stopped electing officers and holding 

meetings . Most members simply had abandoned tribal relations after 1906, and 

by the Great Depression. were leaving Oklahoma by the thousands. Only the 

Keetoowah Indians were willing and probably able to reorganize in Oklahoma 

with great success, if the factions would only pull together. CNO could only 

reorganize under OIWA and IRA today through an election relying almost 

entirely on absentee ballots. 

At the Muskogee hearing concerning the draft Indian Reorganization Act 

on 22 March 1934, Keetoowahs shouted down their opponents and presented John 
141 

Collier and his staff with a formal petition and letter supporting the IRA. 

and orchestrated a motion from the assemb ly roundly endorsing the 

legislation. Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner received a teleg:am, 

opposing reorganization. Though supposedly wireC !rom the Keetoowah Council, 

upon investigating, the Commissioner learned the message was a forgery. 

Collier publicly praised the Keetoowahs for their enthusiasm and 

understanding for reorganizati on in a variety of .,.,.ri tings and press releases. 

Interior Associate Solicitor Felix Cohen monitored :he Keetoowahs' effor~s to 

reorganize. Keetoowah leaders offered plans for reorganization, along 'Nith 

lists of members who supported IRA. Neither the Cherokee Principal Chiefs ncr 

any general representative body of Cherokee Nation itself showed any supper~. 

while various non-Keetoowah Cherokees wrote to the Commissioner denouncing 

the plan. A. M. Landman, Five Civilized Tribes Superintendent, predicted that 

the mixed-bloods would control any pan-tribal Cherokee organization . Landman 

believed that a fullblood organization was best sui ted to represent: the 

fullbloods. However, each faction demanded recognition as the exclusive 

representative government of the Tribe. 

1937-1939, OIWA AND EARLY ATTEMPTS TO A REORGANIZE KEETOOWAH GOVERNMENT 

WITHIN CHEROKEE NATION'S FORMER BOUNDARIES: Oklahoma Senator Elmer Thomas, 

who believed the IRA should be restricted to reserva~ion Indians, co-authored 

the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act to allow Indians living on allotted lands in 

the state to avail themselves of the benefits of IRA . Though the 

participation of Oklahoma Indians in the IRA was not possible unti 1 the 

Thomas-Rogers Act of 1936 enabled reorganization under IRA through the OIWA, 

the Keetoowahs began planning to organize under the legislation. Just as A. 

M. Landman had predicted, the Keetoowah Society, Inc., at the urging of Levi 

Gritts, sought permission to represent the Keetoowah Indians, while certain 

other factions still demanded recognition as the exclusive representative 

government of their own small following, if not of the Tribe. 

BIA anthropologist Dr. Charles Wisdom conducted research on the 

Keetoowah Indians starting 5 May 1937 with the cooperation of Organization 

Field Agent Ben Dwight. Wisdom did not realize the Keetoowahs had a Federal 

Charter predating to the dissolution of Cherokee Nation, showing the 

Keetoowahs' intent to maintain a governing entity within Cherokee Nation 

despite the effect of other Federal legislation. While the Nighthawk 

Keetoowahs were willing to submit to an interview, the Nighthawk leaders 

later utterly rejected the idea of participating in organization, primarily 

because they were not to be the focus of the project. Levi Gritts's effort 

failed when Associate Solicitor Frederick Kirgis issued his KeetoowahOrqanization as a Band Opinion (29 July 1937), based on Charles Wisdom's 

brief ethnographic study, concluding that the Society, or any of its 

factions, standing alone, was only a society of the Keetoowah Indians. and 

never had been a governing polity within the Cherokee Nation . 

A Land Division decision in October 1937 stated that the Cherokee Nation 

government under the 6 September 1839 Constitution was ineligible to 

reorganize to undertake the functions of the 1906 government. Congress had 

dissolved most aspects of the inherent sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation 

government as set out in the 6 September 1839 Constitution.[(MEMO TO INDIAN 

ORGANIZATION, 25 October 1937, from Director of Lands (WDW) to Daiker, Indian 

Organization (163618); see also Solicitor's Opinion, 1 October 1941. 1 Ql2.,_ 

Sol. on Indian Affairs 1076 (U. S. D. I. 1979)] The decision binds CNO, 

despite the Harjo v . Kleppe court's finding that the Five Tribes still 
142 

B 

existed in 1972, and that the citizens of those tribes had the right to organize governments under OIWA and IRA. Thus, while the Cherokee Nation was not terminated, any new organization of the Cherokee · Tribe would have to be an entirely new entity. Field investigators reaffirmed that Cherokee citizens 

forming the general class of Dawes enrollees, with the exception of the 

Keetoowahs, had abandoned tribal relations and had no interest in 

reorganization. 

1939-1946, THE UNION OF KEETOOWAH FACTIONS TO FORM THE UKB: Contrary to post-1979 accounts by CNO, the UKB Base Roll was the BIA-approved 1949 UKB 

Base Roll, not the 1907 Cherokee Dawes Commission Roll. Neither Principal 

Chief Jesse B. Milam nor W. W. Keeler had any role except as bystanders in 

the UKB reorganization. The UKB was never intended to be a mere loan assoc i ation. The UKB was federally-chartered under Section 3 (not Section 4] 

of the OIWA. The UKB never identified itself with the Nighthawk cult, because ~est UKB members belonged to Protestant denominations. 

In June 1939 , Organization Field Agent Ben Dwight informed Regional 

Coordinator of Organization for the Five Civilized Tribes Agency, Muskogee, 

A. C. Monahan, that Kirgis had been unaware of the Keetoowah Society, Inc.'s 

Federal Corporate Charter (20 September 1905]. In obtaining that Charter, the 

Keetoowah Indians had established recognition as a polity of Indians. That 

recognition should have made them eligible to reorganize under OIWA and IRA. 

Realizing the legal effect of that document, A. C. Monahan assigned Ben 

Dwight and A. A. Exendine to help the Band to organize a coalition government 

between 1939 and 1946 including the Society, Inc. and other factions as well. 

The United Xeetoowah Cherokee Band of Indians (UKB) formed a Constitution and By-laws in 1939, and held popular elections between 1939 and 

1946, seating a Chief. Reverend John Hitcher (1939-1946), and a Council. The 

UKB undertook land acquisition efforts for the purpose of establishing a Federal trust land base in Oklahoma in 1942, but the Department would not cooperate without congressional approval. Some Five Civilized Tribaa Agency 

employees hoped to use the Band as a vehicle for restoring the Old Cherokee 

Nation, or at least for reorganizing all the Cherokee Dawes Commission 

enrollees and their descendants under OIWA and IRA. However, the 25 October 

1937 decision of the Director of Lands, Land Division, Department of the 

Interior. prevented that result. The UKB decided by 1942 to remain a •Keetoawah" Cherokee polity including only Cherokee descendants who met the 

UKB membership requirements. The Department determined that an organization 

of the Keetoowahs, reuniting the various Keetoowah factions and other 

Cherokees of one-half blood or more who wanted to participate, did not conflict with the residual government of the Cherokee Nation. The latter was to retain its 1906 status under an appointed Principal Chief. 

D'Arcy McNickle's determination of 24 April 1944 found the UKB was a historical tribe (see full text below). Rather than merely ask the Solicitor to rewrite the opinion, Acting Interior Secretary Abe Fortas asked Congress to pass the 10 August 1946 Act acknowledging the UXB's historical status and 

eligibility to reorganize under OIWA and IRA. The legislative history and 

intent contemplated recognition of a united body of Keetoowah Indians of l/4 

degree Indian blood or more, with the possibility of enrolling persons of 

lesser degree in the future. Keetoowah Indians of all factions and 

communities worked with the Organization Field Agents through Five Tribes 

Agency after 1946 to reunite under a common ~ leadership, although 

every UKB Chief from 1939 to 1979 was a protestant clergyman. UKB interest in 
143 

B 

9 

ChP.rokee-related issues was entirely restricted to interests of the UKE 

constituency, composed primarily of restricted Indians, non-Dawes enrollees, 

and other Keetoowahs who remained loyal to the Keetoowah political ideals. 

1946-1950, THE KEETOOWAH INDIANS ACT AND THE UKB REORGANIZATION: 

Re ve rend Jim Pickup ( 1946-1954, 1956-1957, 1960-1967) succeeded Reverend John 

Hitcher (1939-1946) at the latter's death in 1946, continuing as Provisional 

Chief until reo rganizat ion was complete. Pickup continued as Chief, 

alternating with Jeff Tindle, until 1967 . Due to the Kirgis Keetoowah -

Oraanizat ion as a Band Opinion (29 Ju l y 1 937), the UKB reorganization process 

could not begin until Congress agreed to offer the UKB the opportunity to 

reorganize under OIWA and IRA. The Organization Field Agents, congressional 

staff, and Acting Interior Secretary Abe Fort as, Congressman Stigler ar1d 

Senator Thomas supported the proposed UKB reo rganization, based on the 

results of addit ional research and the success of organizing effo rts. 

Congress passed the Keetoowah Act on 10 August 1946, as part of a package 

measure including a gift of land to the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe in Oklahoma. 

Although in the 1930s the plan was to organi z e half-bloods only, the 

1946 Act did not contemplate the organization of an adult Indian community 

under Section 479 of the IRA, but of a sovereign tribe in the full sense 

under Section 476 of the IRA. Therefore , the 1949 UKB Base Roll was open to 

quarter-bloods, anticipating the future adoption of other Cherokee 

descendants of lesser blood. The reorgan iz ation process took another four 

years. On 1 May 1949, anticipating the roll the UKB would have in managing 

their share of Cherokee Nation property, the BIA named Chief Jim Pickup as 

Trustee for Cherokee Nation assets. On 9 May 1950, Secretary Warne signed the 

approved UKB Charter, and issued a statement that the UKB treaty rights could 

be found in the treaties of the Cherokee Nation. The UKB corporate Charter , 

Constitution and By-Jaws were adopted 3 October 1950 by the majority of 

qualified voters. Thereafter, the UKB, incorporating all the factions of the 

Keetoowah Indians of the Cherokee Tribe throughout the nine districts of the 

old Cherokee Reservation, continued to repose its secular governmental 

authority continuously in democratically-elected Chiefs (also informally 

called, in the 1940s, "Presidents"), Executive Officers, and a Tribal 

Council, with other subordinate officers and officials as needed . 

The 1939 Roll, reaffirmed in 1949, became the foundation of the Base 

Roll, subject to amendment by 3 October 1955 , though the UKB updated it in 

1985 with secretarial approval. During the periods of open enrollment, 

consistent with the 1950 enrollment laws, members of l/4 or more Cherokee 

ancestry, using the Dawes Roll or any other acceptable proof of Cherokee 

ancestry by blood, were adopted into the Band. Enrollment remained open, 

though enrollment ordinances changed several times . 1950-1964, THE UKB DURING TERMINATION: Despite undocumented and 

spurious claims to the contrary, archival sources demonstrate that the Band 

continued to survive and function as a tribal entity since reorganization, 

although not without heated election controversies and partisan feuds, such 

as those between the Jeff Tindle (1954-1956. 1957-1960) and Jim Pickup (1956-

1957, 1960-1967). 

With the aid of Earl Boyd Pierce, Esq., the UKB resumed efforts to 

borrow money in order to acquire a tribal trust land base, through the 

OIWA/IRA revolving credit. In refusing to extend loans to the UKB, the BIA 

relied on the point that the UKB was not organized under Section 4 of the 

OIWA as a loan association, but was a recognized tribe organized under 
144 

B 

10 

Section 3. When the policy was changed making the Section 3 organizations 

eligible to apply, another general policy of BIA Superintendent W. 0. Roberts 

and the Eisenhower Administration prevented loans for such trust land 

acquisition. When UKB Chief Jeff Tindle attempt to have Principal Chief W. W. 

Keeler replaced, Muskogee Area Director Fickinger seized on the occurrence of a UKB election dispute to declare the UKB without a government. When the Band 

appealed , the B!A Commissioner Glenn Emmons admonished Fickinger on his 

refusal to recognize UKB's Council. 

Between 3 October 1950 and 3 October 1960, while the Secretary retained 

approval authority over the UKB, but the Department determined that such 

authority lapsed on 3 October 1960 (see Letter, 15 October 1961. from 

Assistant Chief Tribal Operations Officer Pennington to Muskogee Area 

Director Virgil N. Harrington, regarding Harrington's 7 August 1961 inquiry as to the effect of Sections 5, 6 of the UKB' s Charter on secretarial 

approval authority after 3 October 1960). Principal Chief w. W. Keeler never obtained supervisorial authority over the UKB, except covertly, by arranging 

with Area Director Harrington and the UKB's attorney to receive all 

information regarding their private undertakings so that he could veto them 

if they did not suit him. 

After Chief Pickup resumed office, replacing Chief Jeff Tindle, the BIA 

began to work with the UKB to make the Band the vehicle for delivering 

services to its own members and to other service-eligible Cherokees. In 1963, 

the BIA and Cherokee Nation realized that because of restrictions in the 

Band's Charter that could not be lifted without a secretarial election, the 

UKB was unable to engage in land transactions that involved long-term leases or sale of acquired tribal lands . The UKB continued to seek trust land 

acquisition for tribal housing and its own governmental offices and business, 

with no cooperation from the BIA. · Members of the UKB Tribal Council continued to administer enrollment and to verificy qualifications of prospective members, approving enrollment 

updates through formal Council action. A 4 June 1963 enrollment ordinances 

required new members to prove l/2 or more degree of Cherokee Indian blood, 

but the 23 November 1964 enrollment ordinance restored eligibility to quarter 

bloods. All enrollment ordinances continued to rely upon the 1949 UKB roll. . 1964-1976, THE UKB DURING RECONSTRUCTION OF CHEROKEE NATION: 

Cherokee Nation or Tribe and the UKB embarked on joint enterprises in the 

early 1960s. The UKB Council and Chief Pickup tried to help all Cherokees, 

regardless of UKB affiliation. by acting as the Cherokees• sponsoring 

federally-acknowledged tribal organization for the purpose of bringing in 

funds and programs to Oklahoma. Chief Jim Pickup, as Trustee for the trust assets of Cherokee Nation ( 4 May 1949 - 17 May 1967). wanted the UKB 

Council's joint and concurrent control over Cherokee trust assets, programs 

and services within the boundaries of the old Cherokee Nation to continue, 

for the benefit of the UKB's own members. 

UKB Chief Jim Pickup and UKB Chief Bill Glory (1967-1979) attempted to work cooperatively with Cherokee Nation, even though UKB members bitterly 

criticized both of them for being too accomodating and giving away the rights 

of the UKB. Some leading members of the UKB Council even resigned in protest. 

Relations deteriorated irreparably between Chief Glory and Principal Chief W. 

W. Keeler by 1974. Keeler evicted Glory from the small UKB tribal office 

housed in the CNO tribal complex at Tahlequah after Glory retired from the 

Cherokee Nation Housing Authority . Cherokee Nation attempted thereafter to 
145 

B 

11 

close all doors to UKB participation in Cherokee property and activities. 

The Act of Oct. 22. 1970, 9lst Cong., 2nd Sess .. P. L. 91-495, 84 Stat. 

1091 (1970), the Bellman Bill. "Authoriz[ed] Each of the Five Civilized 

Tribes of Oklahoma to Select Their Principal Officer . " However, 

Commissioner Louis Bruce, in American Indian Tribes and their Federal 

Relationship. Plus a Partial Listing of other United States Indian Groups 

(Wash., D. C.: U.S. Dept. of Interior, BIA, March, 1972) declared that the 

UKB is a fully recognized Class 1 OIWA/IRA tribal entity, while Cherokee 

Nation remained an unorganized Class 3 service population. Federal court 

challenges later determined that the presidentially - or secretarially -

appointed Principal Chiefs of Cherokee Nation since 1906 were bona fide heads 

of state, but those decisions had no legal effect on the status of the UKB. 

1976-1990, THE UKB DURING CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA'S SELFDETERMINATION: CNO opposed the UKB's continuing ef=orts to establish a land 

base, tribal office complex, businesses, and to maintain a separate roll. CNO 

began exploring ways to terminate the Band, including through administrative 

and congressional action. The course of choice was to request nullification 

of the UKB Corporate Charter as provided in Section 8 of that Charter. 

CNO adopted a non-OIWA/IRA government under a 5 July 1976 Constitution 

that Commissioner Morris Thompson and Ross 0. Swimmer co-approved 2 October 

1975. CNO claimed this document to be the legal equivalent of an OIWA 

Charter, Constitution and By-laws. CNO claimed that the UKB and CNO shared a 

common base roll and service population, and that CNO should control all 

funding and trust assets within the former boundaries of Cherokee Nation. 

Litigation addressed question whether the Cherokee government was terminated 

in 1906. The BIA supported CNO's claim that the OIWA and IRA abolished the 

effect of the 1906 Act in that the Tribe was eligible for the benefits of 

OIWA and IRA; however, no one has explained how any Tribe can avail itself of 

the full benefits of OIWA and IRA without reorganizing accordingly. Congress, 

having limited the inherent sovereignty of Cherokee Nation, began to restore it through piecemeal legislation in the 1980s. The BIA also gave CNO special 

dispensations that went around the intent of OIWA and IRA. UKB's organization 

under OIWA 1 IRA became a liability, when Swimmer slurred the OIWA, IRA and 

1946 Act, claiming the UKB was a "created" tribe lacking any sovereignty. 

UKB political and governmental activities and economic development 

efforts were muddled during the early to mid-1970s, dissolving into factional 

disputes between Chief Bill Glory and the Tribal Council. The feud led to the 

development of a Shadow or Underground government under the leadership of Tom 

Hicks, Henry Doublehead and Willie Jumper. Eventually, Jim Gordon (1979-1983) 

was elected as the new Chief to succeed Glory after Tom Hicks withdrew. UKB's 

Council, gridlocked during the mid-seventies, returned to an even keel when 

the Council sought aid from Muskogee Agency to restore order and clear the 

wreckage left after Chief Glory's chaotic administration. 

The years of Chief Jim Gordon's administration (1979-1983) were fraught 

with controversy and a taste of the unrelenting harassment of CNO to come. 

Under Chief Gordon, the Enrollment Committee expanded enrollment activities, 

under a series of new ordinances. For a time, eligibility expanded, though 

few outside the original eligibility classes availed themselves of the 

opportunity. New additions to the Roll occurred through Council resolutions 

in 1980, and in another series of additions, concluding in October 1982. 

During these years, the UKB attempted to participate in various programs and 

development strategies with mixed success, due to lack of resources, lack of 
146 

B 

12 

cooperation from the 8IA and the State, direct interference from CNO, and the 

UKB's own internal political confusion and distress. In the Federal Register, Vol. 44 , No. 26, Tuesday February 6, 1979, pp. 

7235 - 7236 , the Secretary of the Interior lists the UKB as a federallyrec ognized , service-e l igible entity. The Department has since characterized 

this and s i milar publications as bi nding determinations of the Department 

regardi ng the recognition of t r ibes , both in Federal litigation and in 

congressional hearings . 

Pr i ncipal Chief of Cherokee Nation Ross 0 . Swimmer denied UKB's 

historical existence for the first time of record to Oklahoma Senator Henry 

Bellmen, in a Letter. 27 April 1979. Swimmer claimed the UKB was "created" by 

the accidental inclusion of their name in the 6 February 1979 Federal 

Reg ister notice; see also Letter, 30 April 1979, Principal Chief of Cherokee 

Na ti on Ross 0. Swi mmer to Oklahoma Senator David Boren, denying UKB's 

h ist o r i cal existence . The clai ms that the UKE is a sovereign inferior to CNO, 

t hat the UKB has no r i ghts as a Federal-Indian tribe, regardless of source or 

ba s i s , do no t antedate 6 February 1979, and probably are no earlier than 27 

Ap r i l 1979. 

In May 1979 , Assistant Deputy Commissioner Martin Seneca issued a 

dec ision requiring the UKE and CNO to issue concurring resolutions to obtain 

P. L. 93-638 "tribal organization" funding. CNO Principal Chief Ross 0. 

Swirruner lobbied successfully with Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard to 

o ve rturn the Seneca determinat ion. However, in characterizing the 

organi zat i on of federally-acknowledged tribes listed in the 6 February 1979 

Fe deral Register notice , on 20 November 1979 , Ms. Patricia Simmons, Tribal 

Relati ons Specialist , submitted to the Chief, Branch of Tribal Relations, a 

de t ailed report titled , "Organizati onal Status of Federally Recognized Indian 

Ent i t i es." Simmons surveyed a category (p. 2) of "Officially Approved 

Organizations Pursuant to Statutory Authority (Indian Reorganization Act: 

Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act; and Alaska Native Act), finding (p. 3), UKB had 

a Council organized under a Federal Corporate Charter. In the "Other" 

category of "Officially Approved Organi zations Outside of Specific Statutory 

Authori t y ," (p.7). Cherokee Nation (with a Council) was listed. 

On 16 January 1980, Gerard eliminated requirements that CNO obtain 

concurring resolutions from the UKB to apply for any Federal program funds serving Cherokees . CNO c onti nued to claim that the UKB and CNO have a common 

po pu lation, though very few CNO members ever were eligible for membership in 

the UKB. The Band obtained a P. L. 93-638 Grant to amend the 1949 Base Roll 

and produce a current (1986) Roll. In the first month of the project, the BIA 

reaffi rmed that the UKB Base Roll was distinct from the 1907 Cherokee Dawes 

Commission Roll, and therefore was a Base Roll distinct from CNO's . 

The Band transmitted the updated 1949 Roll, the newly approved and duly 

adopted 1986 Membership Roll , and the Final Report of P. L. 93-638 Grant 

G0 8Gl42002 to the BIA's Muskogee office as a deliverable on 16 March 1986. 

The Band submitted these records t o Fede ral District Court with a cover note 

f rom the BIA Muskogee Area Office , in the course in litigation in 1987 in 

Co rdeli a Tyner. a / k / a / Cordelia Tyner Washington. and the United Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee Indians v. State of Oklahoma. ex re . . David Moss. District 

Attorney and David Moss. individually; M. Denise Graham, individuallY, No. 

87- 2797, U. S. D. C. , N.D., Oklahoma. , when the State subpoenaed a copy of 

the Band's tribally-certified roll . 

In 1988, the Department found that the 1976 Cherokee Nation was , as 
147 

B 

13 

constituted, "the full successor to the Cherokee Nation of the fir·st decade 

of this century."(Letter, 4 February 1988, Hazel E. Elbert, Acting Assistant 

Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, to James G. Wilcoxen, Esq., 

Wilcoxen and Cate, Muskogee, Oklahoma) However, unexplained ques~1ons 

regarding the Tribe's inherent sovereignty, precisely because it .i_g the full 

successor to the Cherokee Nation as dissolved in part and preserved in part 

in 1906. The Department did not find that CNO had any authority over the UKB, 

a tribe organized separately under OIWA and IRA. Elbert did find that the 25 

October 1937 Land Division Opinion remained in effect. 

UKB Membership Ordinance 90 UKB 9-16 16 September 1990 provides that any 

descendant of l/4 Cherokee Indian blood of any enrollee on the 1949 UKB Base 

Roll, or on any other historical Cherokee Roll, shall be eligible for 

enrollment in the UKB. Final determinations of Cherokee Indian blood quantum 

rest with the UKB Tribal Council. Under that ordinance, UKB members who held 

affiliation of any kind with any other federally-acknowledged tribe were 

required to relinquish that membership. The UKB continues to require 

relinquishment for new applicants, but is setting up the process for an IRA 

election to change enrollment requirements to require relinquishment and to 

ban dual affiliation. Finally, in 1990, after a systematic review of the United Keetoowah 

Band's enrollment and membership files (and a comparison of those data with 

the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma's data), the BIA Muskogee Area Office 

confirmed, that more than 3, 000 members of the United Keetoowah Band, 

including its Base Enrollees, never were registered with Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma, and therefore never had any form of dual affiliation with that 

entity. Some 4, 700 UKB members either never voluntarily registered with 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, or once were registered (voluntarily or 

igvoluntarily}, but subsequently voluntarily relinquished their CNO 

registration. On 24 July 1992, Rosella C. Garbow, Muskogee Area Tribal 

Operations Officer, declared: 

This is to certify that records created in 1985 show that the United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma has approximately 4,700 

enrolled members residing within their service area. 

Over 250 more UKB members have relinquished their affiliation with any other 

federally-recognized tribe since that date. The 1986 United Keetoowah Band 

Roll, completed during the P. L. 93-638 grant, was known to be an official 

Tribal Roll for all purposes, duly adopted by the Tribal Council, and 

authenticated by the BIA, within the meaning of Federal Indian Law. It is upto-date, and there are regular monthly additions through adoption, and 

clarifications of exclusive affiliation through relinquishment from Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma. 

Regardless of Dawes descendency, it is the policy of the United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that all lineal descendants of 

the 1949 Base Roll and current roll are automatically eligible for membership 

in the Band. The UKB hoped that the enrollment update and other status 

clarification efforts would result in separation of their population from 

CNO's, and would lead to the development of a UKB land base and separate 

programs. However, a separation of the two populations required the 

cooperation of CNO, and that was virtually impossible for the UKB to obtain. The UKB sought to finance litigation to obtain a clarification of their 

political and economic rights, but CNO intervened with all agencies, 

foundations, corporations, local goverrunents and Congress to prevent any 
148 

B 

14 

successful business vent ures. 

CONCLUSION: 1990-1993, THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA'S CAMPAIGN TO 

TERMINATE THE UKB: In 1990, in a desperate effort to prevent the Secretary 

from extending to the UKB the full r ights of a properly organize OIWA and IRA 

t r ibal government, Ross 0 . Swimmer wrote a letter to Assistant Secretary 

Brown. This letter c oncluded that the UKB should not be recognized at all, 

because the UKB Base Roll was the not BIA-approved 1949 UKB Base Roll , not 

the 1907 Cherokee Dawes Commissi o n Roll , because Principal Chief W. W. Keeler 

had the UKB reorganized to suit his own purposes, because the UKB was only 

intended to be a loan association , and because the UKB, though federallychartered under Section 3 of the OIWA, was always trying to ride the 

coattails of the Ni ghthawk Keetoowahs in order to establish a tribal 

identity . Swimmer's claims became the core of the case against the UKB 

there after in litigation and in hearings . The CNO had terminated a tribe by c reating a new mytho l ogy . 

The premise upon which Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard relied in 

penning the 16 January 1980 Letter barring separate funding for the United 

Keetoowah Band was the same one upon which Congress relied in declaring the 

United Keetoowah Band ineligible for separate funding and land acquisition in 

Oklahoma (at least for the purposes of the lOlst Congress) within the former 

boundaries of Cherokee Nation (in Amendment 86 to H. R. 101-116, the FY 1992 

Interior Budget Appropriations Bill). That defective premise was that 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band share the same Base 

Ro ll. 

Having revi ewed the history of the UKB in brief, the reader should 

perc eive readily the problems with Mr . Ron Eden's testimony to Congressman 

Aucoin's committee in April 1991 [at the U. S. House Interior and Insular 

Affairs Committee Hearings on 101-116 on FY 1992 Interior Appropriations, 

Un i ted Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Nation (11 April 1991)]. The hearing record 

contained a brief discussion of the BIA's reasons for moving to rescind the 

16 January 1980 Letter of Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard. Gerard's policy 

prevented separate services and land acquisition for the United Keetoowah 

Band and the Creek Tribal Towns. The speakers commented on the autonomous 

status of the United Keetoowah Band organized under the 1934, 1936 and 1946 

Acts. Chairman Aucoin then cited what purported to be the Department's own l ong-standing determination that the Band had failed to carry out its 

contractual obligati ons under one P. L. 93-638 grant. Realizing that Eden was 

loath to agree that the Band was unrecognized or did not deserve recognition, 

Congressman Aucoin suggested that notwithstanding other law or equities, the 

Band did not deserve a chance to contract services for the benefit of the 

Band : 

Just one second, Mr . Eden . In 1980, looking at Hr. Synar's background 

information, he says on page 4 of his background paper that, "In 1980, 

upon reviewing a funding request from the UKB, the Department of the 

Interior issued the following policy . ft This is not the full quote but 

the conclusion of the quote: 

There is no justification for contracts and/or grants with UKB to 

provide the same services to those portions of the Cherokee Nation 

which would be served under the Nation's contracts and/or grants. 

The only funding the BIA issued was a 1984 grant of $70,000 to help 

the UKB establish a tribal roll and identify its unique service 

population . To date, however, the BIA has concluded that the UKB 
149 

3 

has failed to accomplish either task. 

What about that? 

Mr. Eden. Correct. Mr . AuCoin . Those are the Department ' s own words in 1980 . 

15 

Mr. Eden . Well . that is the policy that we're talking about as a result of the membership of the Cherokee Nation and the Keetoowah Band having 

the same enrollment criteria and traced to the same base roll . That was 

the reason that essentially the Gerard policy was put in place. 

Mr. AuCoin. Why did you change the policy then? 

Mr. Eden. Well, we started out changing the pol i cy because of anot her 

tribal issue; . namely, that the Creek towns did not want to continue 

receiving their services from the Creek Nation.[U. S. Congress, House 

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Heari ngs on 101-116 on FY 1992 Interior Appropriations, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Nation (1 1 

April 1991) ; emphasis added] The date ~1980" appears several times in this testimony, always alluding to 

a finding of the Department supposedly made that year regarding the Band's competency to carry out contractual obligations. Eden twice expressly 

confirmed the existence of that determination in "the Department ' s own words. • Eden did not address the discrepancy between the date of the alleged 

negative "finding" and the date the grant was awarded, much less admit the "finding" never existed. The "finding" was a citation in Cherokee Nation•s 

briefing materials supplied to the Committee and the BIA. What is most surprising is that evidently, no one at the hearing noticed the falsehood due 

to a strictly "ends-oriented" agenda. 

The Band is in receipt of Muskogee Area Tribal Operations Officer 

Rosella C. Garbow' s 24 July 1992 finding that the UKB has an Oklahoma resident population, and service area population, of 4 , 700, of whom nearly 

4,000 now are exclusive UKB members. The Band received Ron Eden's 24 August 

1992 determination as Acting Assistant Secretary that the UKB is an 

autonomous, federally-recognized American Indian Tribe, entitled to separate 

services and land acquisition in Oklahoma. The !lleqed "1980 decision of the 

BIA" only would be significant -- if it existed -- because it purported to reflect an the question whether the Band deserved to serve its own needs, or 

whether the Band and its members should be compelled to rely on Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma for programs and services. The implication is that the 

Band was incapable of meeting contractual obligations. The alleged BIA 

determination obviously could not have been a 1980 "decision• by the 

Department of the Interior on the UKB' s ability to provide satisfactory 

performance on a 26 November 1984 P. L. 93-638 grant. 

The purpose of the~ grant was not to enable the - Band to "identify 

[the UKB ' ]s unique service population,• simply by declaring the roll exclusive, once complete. The purpose of the grant was to allow the UKB to 

update and verify the contents of individual members' files, in order to 

correct the 1949 Base Roll and to update the current roll so that the Band could identify its exclusive membership.(Letter, 24 July 1992, Area Tri bal 

Operations Officer Rosella C. Garbow TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) Without additional clarification from the records of CNO registration, as confirmed 

by the BIA after the completion of the project, identification of the unique UKB service population (comprised of those who never had been citizens of any 

other recognized tribe, and who had relinquished any CNO status) would have been impossible. Identifying the UKB's unique population has continued to be 
150 

B 

16 

challenging since 1986, because CNO routinely re-registers UKB members who 

relinquish CNO registration, without their consent or knowledge. CNO now 

requires UKB members to "show good cause" and imposes a 180-day waiting 

period before honoring relinquishments. With people supposedly clamoring to 

register with CNO and over 150,000 on the CNO registry, it is amazingly 

difficult for UKE members to prevent CNO from registering against their will. 

Apparently, Congressman Synar's briefing book did not contain a copy of 

the P. L. 93-638 contract letter to the UKB, correspondence and reports 

generated during the project, or the Band's voluminous Final Report on the 

Grant, because that document would have shown the purpose of the Grant and 

its successful completion. The BIA and Congress ignored the Band's submission 

of the Final Report, the amended 1949 Base Roll and updated 1986 Roll. 

Congressman Aucoin concluded with a final question: 

[A]ssuming no enactment in 1946 or any other year allowing the UKB to 

organize under section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, would or 

could the BIA recognize the UKB as a new tribe or band? Amplify that 

for the record because obviously Mr. Synar believes that there may be 

the need for a record to be laid and perhaps legislation to be amended. 

[U. S. Congress, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Hearings 

on 101-116 on FY 1992 Interior Appropriations, United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Nation (11 April 1991)] 

The only item the BIA used to "amplify the record" was the Kirgis Keetoowah-

- Organization as a Band Opinion of 29 July 1937. The Department found it 

inconvenient to cite Acting Secretary of the Interior Abe Fortas's finding, 

supporting the plan to allow all the various factions of the Keetoowah 

Indians to reunite and reorganize as a Band. (Senate Report 79 Cong., 2nd 

Sess., No. 978, 1946, Testimony of Acting Secretary of Interior Abe Fortas; 

see also, House Report 79th Cong., 1st Sess., No. 444, 1946 and House Report 

79th Cong., 2nd Sess., No. 2705, 1946) The Department conveniently forgot 

that there already was a Federal Charter for the Keetoowahs in 1905. The BIA 

and Congress refused to refer to records of the Organization Field Agents 

from 1937 to 1946, or to the legislative history of the 1946 Act, that showed 

why and how the UKB was reorganized. Congress even accepted without question 

Ross 0. Swimmer's bizarre story that Congress recognized the UKB in order to 

accomodate Principal Chief W. W. Keeler in some way. 

Congress passed Amendment 86 to the FY 1992 Interior Budget, agreeing to 

delete funding for the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, 

providing further in the legislative history that until such time as Congress 

enacts contrary legislation, Federal funds should not be provided to any 

group other than the Cherokee Nation within the jurisdictional area of the 

Cherokee Nation. Unless the UKB is able to move entirely out of Oklahoma, the 

result was this technically deficient language, which nonetheless represents 

the express legislative termination for the purposes of eiligibility of the 

first tribe since 1962: 

... until such time as legislation is enacted to the contrary. none of 

the funds a?propriated in this or any other Act for the benefit of 

Indians residing within the jurisdictional service area of the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma shall be expended by other than the Cherokee Nation, 

nor shall any funds be used to take land into trust within the 

boundaries of the original Cherokee territory in Oklahoma without the 

consent of the Cherokee Nation. 

As Acting Assistant Secretary, Ron Eden issued a determination on 24 August 
151 

8 17 

1992 that the UKB is entirely separate and autonomous from CNO, and is 

recognized as a properly organized OIWA and IRA tribal government that 

neither has been terminated nor barred from the Federal-Indian relationship. 

Meanwhile, the nebulous status of CNO continues to receive blanket 

endorsements from the BIA and summary approvals of Congress . With the 

approval of the Secretary, the Councils of 010 and the Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians of North Carolina adopted a concurring resolution without 

notice to the UKB in August 1992 that they are the sole federally-recognized 

Cherokee tribes. Principal Chief Mankiller announced in January 1993 to all 

U. S . governors that the UKB is an unrecognized Indian group . While claiming 

that she has made the resolution of differences with the UKB a personal and 

political priority, Mankiller has campaigned for the express legislative 

termination of t he UKB. CNO has signed a new self-governance program to take 

effect in October 1993, and enjoys piecemeal rest:orat:ion of the inherent 

sovereignty of Cherokee Nat i on under the 1906 Act, based largely on the 

misconception that the CNO is organized as a democratic OIWA and IRA 

government. In a Let ter. 7 July 1993 . from John Ross , Chief Spokesman , to 

Rosella C. Garbow , Director, Training and Operations, BIA, Muscogee Area , 

asking for clarification on the following points: 

1. Has the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma ever proposed having an 

0. I. W. A. election to adopt a Charter? 

2. Does CNO clai.m to have a Charter? 

3. Does CNO c laim to have a "blanket" concurring resolution 

from the UKB for CNO use of the UKB Charter? 

Rosella C. Garbow i ni ti aled the memo and advised that the answer to all three 

questions was. "No." There will be no level playing field between the CNO and 

the UKE, as long as Congress and the BIA authorize CNO's continuing attack on 

the UKB's sovereign interests. If the fate of the UKB serves as precedent, no 

other small recognized tribe i s safe. 
152 

AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE UKB'S STATUS 

WITH REVIEW UNDER THE CRITERIA OF 25 C. F. R. 83 

'The Keetoowahs themselves have never accepted the view that 

they are not "the people' and that they do not speak for the real 

interests of the ancient Cherokee world. They continue to this day 

to speak and act in all patience as if the decrees of the courts 

and the acts of the Congress had never been. But they are still 

puzzled at the failure of the United States to understand the 

simple thing they have always said, namely that Keetoowah is 

Cherokee and should never have been considered anything else." 

-- from Position Paper on the UKB, 24 April 1944, D'Arcy McNickle, 
153 

2 

THE STATUS OF THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA 

The purpose of the following narrati ve is to lay to rest certain 

popular misconceptions about the political identity of the Keetoowah 

Indians who compose a recognized Indian tribe. The most damaging of 

these misconceptions arose during the concerted, well-financed campaign 

by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Department of the Interior to falsify the record of the UKB ' s existence and organization to accomplish 

the Band's termination. That campaign started on or about 27 April 1979 . The UKB hopes that Congress, Indian nations and voters will learn from 

this account how the involuntary termination of tribal existence still 

is possible. 

* * * After 1968, Congress took steps to halt or reverse the unilateral 

administrative and legislative termination of tribes. P. L. 100-297, 

Title 25 U. s. c. Section 2502 (April 28 , 1988), formally rescinded P. 

L. 83-108 as a statement of the "sense of Congress," at least for the 

purposes of the 100th Congress. Congress declared that there shall be no unilateral termination of any federally-recognized tribe. See 

legislative history at 1988 U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative 

News, p. 101. Termination still happens. through third-party challenges to the tribal status of tribes that are recognized . Aggressive lobbying, 

litigation, and defamation are effective tools for competing governments 

and business interests who find any particular tribe's inherent powers 

and rightful property claims to be inconvenient. The UKB example 

provides an important case study of the continuing termination process. 

This narrative begins at what could be the end . The effect of an obscure amendment to the FY 1992 Interior budget was to declare the Band 

ineligible for separate services or Federal trust land acquisition, and 

therefore effectively terminated as a sovereign. The legislative history 

of Amendment 86 is illustrative of the UKB ' s interactions with the U. S . Congress, the BIA, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and the State of 

Oklahoma since 1979. 

Knowing well that the purpose of a $100 , 000 line item in the FY 92 

Interior budget was to allow the UKB to maintain a current distinct 

Tribal Roll, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma intervened to prevent the 

funding allocation. Congressman Mike Synar ' s testimony -against the UKB 

during the hearings on FY 1992 Interior appropriations quoted from what 

he said was a BIA assessment of the UKB's performance under its 1984 P. 

L. 93-638 grant to update the UKB Roll. At the hearing, Chairman Les 

Aucoin clearly viewed this quote as the single most important charge 

against the UKB. At the appropriations hearing, BIA witnesses verified 

that the statement was an authentic quote from a 1980 BIA report. 

No one at the hearing , no member of Congress, no staff member ever read the alleged quote carefully enough to notice the date of the 

alleged BIA "determination." No one at the hearing read f~or cited 

the 1984 grant approval letter from the BIA to the UKB informing the 

Band of the award and its terms. No one cited the UKB' s 1986 Final 

Report or read from the Band's cover letter. No one invited the UKB to respond , or listened when the UKB learned about the hearing and 

attempted to respond to the accusations of Congressman Synar and CNO. No 

member of Congress ever has asked whether it was physically impossible 
154 

3 

for there to be a 1980 BIA negative assessment of the Band's performance 

on a project which did not exist until 1984, and which the Band 

completed in 1986. The UKB Tribal Council's Final Report to the BIA on their 1984 P. L. 93-638 grant accompanied an approved and updated roll. 

That roll was verified by the BIA Muskogee Area Office for use as 

evidence in Cordelia Tyner. a/k/a/ Cordelia Tyner Washington. and the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. State of Oklahoma. ex re., 

David Moss. District Attorney and David Moss. individually; M. Denise 

Graham, individually, No. 87-2797, U. S. D. C., N.D., Oklahoma (1987), 

when the State of Oklahoma demanded that the UKB produce a current 

approved Tribal Roll. Contrary to post-1979 accounts by CNO, the UKB 

Base Roll was and still is the BIA-approved 1949 UKB Base Roll, not the 

1907 Cherokee Dawes Commission Roll. A comparison of the grant letter 

and the UKB's Final Report proves that Congressman Synar's 1991 

allegations against the UKB were false. 

It is impossible to write a valid program evaluation four years 

before a project starts and six years before it ends. If the BIA was 

prescient enough in 1980 to forsee the UKB would fail to perform on its 

1984 grant contract by 1986 and issue a report in 1980 making that 

finding, why did the Assistant Secretary grant the award in the first 

place? If the new Congress is incapable of rescinding Amendment 86, no 

Indian sovereign is safe. 

* * * Another charge against the UKB dating to 1979 is that it is a 

splinter group of the Nighthawk Keetoowah religious organization, or 

alternatively, that it is a bogus organization wrongfully claiming a political identity and affiliation with the Nighthawk Keetoowahs. The 

UKB never identified itself with the Nighthawk cult. Most original UKB 

members belonged to Protestant denominations, and most of the Chiefs 

have been fundamentalist preachers or church leaders; that is the plain 

truth. 

Chadwick Smith, a Cherokee affiliated with Cherokee Nation and 

enrolled with the UKB, has been an employee of Cherokee Nation since the 

1970s. While he serves as legal counsel for CNO and as a judge in CNO's 

magistrate court system, he also represents the Nighthawk Keetoowahs 

regarding their false claim that the UKB is a splinter group of the 

nNighthawk" Keetoowah Society, created at some unknown date between 1905 

and 27 April 1979 (the date when Ross 0. Swimmer's claims against UKB's 

status emerged). Chadwick Smith leads a group of "Reformed Keetoowahs" 

dedicated to neutralizing UKB political activity, by termination if 

possible. Ironically, Chadwick Smith is a grandson of Rachel Quinton, a faithful UKB Council representive for the Canadian District, as well as 

Secretary and Clerk during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, who never saw the 

UKB as a creature of CNO. Throughout most of her later years, Secretary 

Rachel Quinton unsuccessfully promoted reconciliation between Stokes 

Smith, the Chief of the Nighthawk contingent in her day, and the UKB 

Council, hoping that Stokes Smith's would encourage his followers to join the UKB. Mr. Smith's personal crusade against the UKB repudiates 

his membership in the UKB, and dishonors the memory of his own 

grandmother. 

Federal records and official accounts attest that the Nighthawk 

Keetoowah Society broke away from the old Keetoowah Society about 1905 
155 

4 

as a result of a disagreement regarding the political future of the 

community. The history of the "Nighthawks" as a secretive religious cult 

in the strict anthropological sense is well-established in scholarly 

writings. Today, the two main opposing factions of Keetoowah Nighthawks at Stokes Smiths Grounds and at Redbird Smith's Grounds sti 11 claim 

(separately, and in opposition to each other and the rest of the world) to be the arch-conservative bastion of Cherokee tradition. The 

Nighthawks generally have barred members from affiliation in any other 

political, religious or social organizations. The Nighthawks' "nonpolitical" religious organizations shunned most christian influences as a doctrinal matter, though Redbird Smith himself venerated Christ at the 

end of his life . Therefore , it is most interesting to find that in 1991, 

the Nighthawk Keetoowahs at Stokes Smith's Grounds reversed a policy of over SO years' standing to attack the political status of the UKB, 

adopting a new agenda that suited Chad Smith ' s professional aspirations 

quite well. Chad Smith, his father and certain cronies have used their 

dual affiliation with CNO and the UKB to mount a widely-advertised 

campaign to terminate the UKB from within. 

The Keetoowah Society, Inc., incorporated on 20 September 1905, and 

worked to keept the Keetoowah factions united. The Corporation led the 

struggle for the right of the UKB to reorganize, but its long-time 

leaders lost credibility and following to the UKB after 1939. By 1950, most members of the various Keetoowah factions had joined the UKB, even though the leaders of these factions never officially resolved their 

philosophical differences. While the Nighthawk Keetoowahs recorded under 

900 current members (and the membership at the two remaining, opposing 

grounds has continued gradually to decline), the official UKB enrollment 

was around 1,500 in 1939, and grew to over 3,000 by the time of the IRA 

election in 1950. The UKB has a resident Oklahoma service population of 

4,700, of whom about 4,000 hold exclusive UKB membership. The weak basis 

for the "Nighthawk" legend appears below in a detailed chronology and 

analysis of events leading to the acknowledgment of the UKB in 1946 as a federally-recognized tribe entirely distinct from the Nighthawk 

organization or from Cherokee Nation. 

. * * * On 27 April 1979, Ross 0. Swimmer claimed that the UKB was created as a Section 4 loan association under OIWA, only to enable individual 

Cherokees to obtain personal loans. UKB was never intended to be a mere OIWA loan association. The UKB was federally-chartered under Section 3 

(not Section 4) of the OIWA, and never received any OIWA loans, because 

the BIA refused to allow them to participate in the program, even after 

the rule changes made them eligible, as a Section 3 chartered Tribe. 

Ross 0. Swimmer later claimed (8 May 1990) that Principal Chief W. 

W. Keeler personally arranged the acknowledgent and reorganization of 

the UKB after 1950 in order to assure that Cherokee interests would be 

represented in Federal claims actions. While Swimmer's B Hay 1990 claim 

is false in stating that Keeler had any significant role in the 1946 Act or the UKB reorganization, 1 t supports the theory that the UKB is 

entitled to standing as a party in any claims actions regarding the trust assets of the old Cherokee Nation. As the records demonstrate, 

neither Principal Chief W. W. Keeler, nor his immediate predecessor 

Jesse B. Hi lam, had any role except as bemused bystanders in UKB' s 
156 

5 

reorganization. We have found no evidence that Keeler knew what a 

Keetoowah was until he was appointed to Cherokee Nation Executive 

Committee on 30 July 1948, months before he succeeded Milam. 

Swimmer's fallback · position was that the UKB never properly 

reorganized under OIWA and IRA, notwithstanding the 1946 congressional 

recognition of the Band's eligibility to reorganize, due to a 1937 

Solicitor's Opinion by Frederic L. Kirgis. In I<eetoowah -- Organization 

as a Band Kirgis determined the Keetoowah Society, Inc., was ineligible 

under OIWA and IRA to reorganize as an Indian tribe. Swimmer was silent 

regarding the written findings of the Five Civilized Tribes Agency 

Organization Field Agents (Ben Dwight and A. A. Exendine) and of their 

Regional Coordinator, A. C. Monahan (between June 1939 and 1946). 

Swimmer seemed conveniently ignorant of the documented BIA organization 

field work with the UKB after 1937, and the legislative history of the 

1946 Keetoowah Indians Act. In debunking Swimmer's follies, this 

narrative reviews the entire documented history of the UKB's 

reorganization under the OIWA and the IRA. The narrative describes the 

Band's near eradictation between 1979 and 1992 due to administrative 

termination and legislative logrolling. The narrative concludes with a 

brief discussion of measures the UKB is undertaking to survive. 

• • • 

This story of the near-termination of the UKB begins with an 

account of the Band's formal congressional recognition. The 1937 

Keetoowah Society, Inc., Opinion lost all significance in the 

congressional acknowledgment of the UKB. Congress knew all about the 

Opinion, and agreed with the policy basis, but disagreed with the factfinding and conclusions. The 1937 Kirgis Opinion relied on the 

understanding that the various I<eetoowah factions ·that had broken away 

since 1900 had never formed a coalition government. He ignored the 

significant point that, though the I<eetoowah Society, Inc., bad lost 

much of its right to claim dominion over all I<eetoowah Indians due to 

factionalism, the I<eetoowah Society had obtained a Federal Charter from 

a territorial court in Tahlequah on 20 September 1905, recognizing it as 

a polity of Indians. The I<eetoowah Indians already had been federallyacknowledged as a political entity, a tribe. 

CNO claims that the 1946 I<eetoowah Act was somehow an error, but 

the legis!ative history behind the 1946 Keetoowah Act shows the UKB's 

recognition was no fluke. In endorsing the bill, Acting Secretary of the 

Interior Abe Fortas relied on ten years of BIA organization work, 

finding that it was possible for the majority of Keetoowah Cherokees to 

unite to form a coalition government by consensus, even if it meant abandoning their own factions, including the Keetoowah Society, Inc., 

itself . U. S. Congress recognized the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) as a Tribe of Indians residing in Oklahoma 

under the Act of August 10, 1946 (60 Stat. 976). The Band subsequently 

incorporated under Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of June 

26, 1936 (46 Stat. 1967), the OIWA. The Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior approved the Band's election (October 3, 1950) to ratify 

the amendments to the UKB Tribal Constitution and Bylaws, and to adopt 

a Corporate Charter under the OIWA. The UKB remains an autonomous, 

distinct, federally-recognized tribal entity. The UKB has reserved to 

itself all the rights and privileges secured to organized tribes under 
157 

6 

Section 3 of the Indian Reorganization Act . 

CNO also claimed in statements to the BIA (1990 - 1991) that, 

regardless of the 1946 Act, the reorganization of the UKB was 

fundamentally defective or never completed , and that therefore the Band 

should never be recognized. BIA representatives adopted this line in 

discussions with Keetoowah representatives visiting in Washington , D. 

C., in 1991, claiming that they simply could not locate signed copies of 

the UKB Charter, Constitution or By-laws, or proof that the 3 October 

1950 Federal election ever had happened. The UKB's findings in Federal 

archival holdings in 1990 and 1991 proved not only that these documents 

existed, but that BIA staff had made no reasonable effort to look for 

them, or simply were lying. 

On 27 April 1979 , Ross 0 . Swimmer also claimed that the UKB never 

had conducted any governmental or communi ty functions as a Tribe, and 

that it had abandoned tribal relations voluntarily at some undefined 

time between 1969 and 1979 . The inclusion of the UKB ' s name on the 

Interior Secretary's 6 February 1979 Federal Register listing of 

federally-recognized tribes, therefore , was a fluke . Swimmer did not 

bother to check departmental determinations on the UKB ' s status during 

the 1970s, or request documentation of continuing tribal relations; 

Swimmer simply undertook systematic efforts to void the status of the 

UKB . In separate letters dated 27 April and 30 April 1979, Swimmer asked 

Congress to exercise its authority under Section 8 of the UKB Charter to 

nullify the Charter. However , the Department concluded that Congress 

also would have to void the UKB Constitution to complete the 

transaction , and that spelled TERMINATION . TERMINATION was not a popular 

word any more . 

Thereafter, Swimmer made the termination of the UKB a personal 

crusade. These efforts are a primer for third party challenges of tribal 

status throughout the United States. U. s . Secretaries of Interior and 

Assistant Secretaries of the Interior for Indian Affairs from Gerard to 

Swimmer ignored the congressional mandate respecting the sovereign 

rights and entitlements of the UKB. While he was Assistant Secretary 

from September 1985 to January 1989 , Swimmer used his office to 

promulgate a series of negative determinations against the UKB. 

Afterwards, Swimmer freely cited decisions of his own administration as 

authority in lobbying his successor, Dr. Eddie Frank Brown. Although the 

CNO successfully blocked all Federal funding, services, and trust land 

acquisition for the Band while Brown was in, the BIA never altered its 

basic position, consistent with the 1946 intent of Congress, that the 

UK8 enjoys a government-to-government relationship with the United 

States. See Letter, 10 July 1989 Decision , Acting Superintendent Cecil 

Shipp, Tahlequah Agency, BIA, "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN," verifying the 

"Federal recognition of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees of 

Oklahoma as a federally recognized tribal entity;" also, Letter, 24 July 

1992 Decision, Area Tribal Operations Officer Rosella C. Garbow TO WHOM 

IT MAY CONCERN, certifying and authenticating the UKB's Roll; and 

Letter, 24 August 1992 Decision, Acting Assistant Secretary Ronald Eden 

to Chief John Ross, UKB, confirming that the UKB is an autonomous fully 

federally-recognized Tribe, eligible for separate services and land 

acquisition, but for Amendment 86 of P. L. 101-116, 2nd Sess. , 1991. CNO 

failed to challenge these determinations in any way under the APA. 

86-834 95-6 
158 

7 

In a Letter dated 10 November 1989 , Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 

Chairman of the Senat e Commi ttee on Indian Affai rs, to John ·Ross, then 

Treasurer of the UKB. Senator Inouye assured the UKB : Your status as a recognized tribe is not in question. However, 

the decision of the BIA i n 1980 to designate the Cherokee Nation as the recipient of 638 grant s and contracts, to the exclusion of your 

tribe , is now being revi ewed . It is certainly my hope that the 

review will be favorable to the right of the United Keetoowah Band to contract for its own programs and services. 

I n United Keetoowah Band Cherokee Nation , 30 October 1990, a memorandum from Dr . Eddie Frank Brown to the Solicitor of the Department 

of the Interior, Brown covered the Department's position paper on the 

UKB issue . The Assistant Secretary concluded, "the United Keetoowah Band 

has been recognized as a tribe since 1950 , and we do not want to wi thdraw that recognition . Absent Congressional action, we do not have 

the authority to do so." The memorandum substantiated the sovereign 

claims of the UKB f rom 1939 to the present , except that he had failed 

altogether to review the record and determinations of the BIA and the 

Band proving that the UKB has a d i stinct, 1949 Base Roll and separate 

membership cri teri a from CNO . Referring to the OIWA , the Position Paser 

recalled : The OIWA allows "the Indians of Oklahoma to exercise substantially 

the same rights and privileges as those granted to Indians outside 

of Oklahoma by the IRA." H. R. Report No . 2408, at 3. Thus, the 

Indian governments that reorganized under Section 3 of the OIWA are of the same legal and independent character as those non-Oklahoma 

Indian tribes that reorganized pursuant to Section 16 of the IRA 

(25 U. S. C. Section 476). · The equities here are not on the side of the U.S . , Oklahoma or CNO. The 

UKB , as a matter of Federal-Indian law, is a government organized under 

OIWA and IRA since 1950. The UKB is in no sense subordinate to the CNO. 

The UKB Charter and Constitution are senior to the 1975 CNO Constitution 

(CNCA), which is not a proper organic document under OIWA and IRA. CNO 

has had the opportunity to accept funds and contract out programs under 

P. L. 93-638 to the exclusion of the UKB, allegedly on behalf of and for 

the benefit of the UKB, and now is participating in Self-Governance 

agreements wi th the U. S. , purport i ng to represent the interests of the 

UKB. CNO is incompetent to represent the interests of the UKB, lacks 

sovereign interests over the affairs of the UKB, and has had no formal 

intersovereign relationship the UKB since 4 March 1906. To test these 

statements, one needs only to review the status and history of Cherokee 

Nation since at least 1898. 

* * * Notwithstanding the Agreement with the Cherokee Nation, April 1, 

1900, which declared the intent of Congress that the governments of the 

Five Civilized Tribes would expire in 1906; and notwithstanding other statutes that pared away particular governmental functions of Cherokee 

Nation and the other four Nations in the meantime; the 1906 Act 

nonetheless preserved certain residual, primarily executive powers of 

the Five Tribes' governments, while restoring none of the terminated 

functions, or the revoked Constitutions. Under the OIWA (1936). any 

Oklahoma tribe theoretically could form a council, adopt a constitution, 
159 

8 

by-laws, and charter with secretarial approval, and reorganize under the 

IRA, just as tribes in other states could. However , in a Memorandum to 

the Indian Organization Division regarding the eligibility of Cherokee 

Nation in particular to avail itself of the benefits of the OIWA , the 

Director of Lands of the Department of the Interior determined on 25 

October 1937 (File #163618), that: 

It is not believed that the Oklahoma Welfare Act may be used 

as authority to reorganize the existing tribal government of the 

Cherokee Nation. On the contrary , the Act appears to contemplate 

the creation of a new , separate and distinct organization , to adopt 

its own constitution and bylaws and to procure a charter of 

incorporation without regard to the existing government. 

It is believed that the powers and jurisdiction of the new 

organization should be limited to the property and other benefits 

to be acquired under the Act. Those persons whose names are on the 

final rolls of the Cherokee Nation have certain rights in the 

remaining assets of the tribe, and if any attempts were made to 

deny them the right to vote on matters that may affect such rights, 

it would doubtless give rise to litigation. 

CNO claims all the benefits and advantages of OIWA and IRA 

reorganization , with none of the burdens or responsibilities. CNO claims 

to be full and exclusive successor to the powers and assets of the Old 

Cherokee Nation, with the right to discriminate among classes of 

descendants with impunity. CNO claims title to all the IRA purchases for 

a Cherokee tribe organized in Oklahoma under OIWA and IRA, although the 

only such tribe is the UKB. No Act of Congress, judicial determination 

or aclministrati ve decision ever has contradicted or reversed the 25 

October 1937 determination expressly . 

* * * The Act of Oct. 22, 1970, 9lst Cong ., 2nd Sess., P. L. 91-495, 84 

Stat . 1091, the "Bellmen Bill," "Authorizing Each of the Five Civilized 

Tribes of Oklahoma to Select Their Principal Officer, and for Other 

Purposes," exemplified efforts to overrule the BIA's interpretation of 

the 1906 Five Tribes Act, under which the u. s. appointed the Principal 

Chiefs. The Act restored the Cherokee Dawes enrollees' and descendants' 

right to select leaders, but did not revive suspended powers which 

earlier legislation had dissolved , suspended, or conditioned. While 

restoring the opportunity to exercise certain inherent rights of 

sovereignty, the Bellmen Bill extended to the Cherokee Nation no 

exemptions from the procedural requirements for organization under the 

OIWA. 

In 1971 , Cherokee Nation reelected Principal Chief W. W. Keeler in an informal national plebiscite. In Harjo v. Kleppe, 420 F. Supp 1110 

(D.D.C. 1972), aff'd. sub nom. Hario v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 949 (D . C.Cir . 

1978), the U. S . Supreme Court determined that the Curtis and Dawes 

legislation had preserved the governments of the Five Tribes to the 

extent Congress had not limited their powers. OIWA, IRA, and later 

legislation made it possible for some of the Five Tribes to organize new 

governments in the 1970s and regain aspects of their sovereignty that 

earlier congressional Acts had restricted or eliminated. However, 

eligibility to reorganize is not the same as reorganization; 

reorganization, as the UKB can attest , can be an excruciatingly 
160 

9 

demanding process. 

As a matter of administrative convenience, the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior and Congress condoned the unconventional 

quasi-reorganization of the CNO that followed the last term of Principal 

Chief w. w. Keeler (1971-1975) . As the Cherokee Nation drafted a Constitution, the CNO properly relied on Haria in concluding that CNO 

indeed had retained aspects of inherent sovereignty through the years; 

however, their analysis did not consider the problem of the erosion of 

Cherokee Nation's sovereignty through congressional and administrative acts which still had its effects on Cherokee Nation, leaving intact only 

unaffected aspects of inherent sovereignty. Commissioner of Indian 

Affairs Morris Thompson approved the Constitution for referendum on 5 

September 1975, as "seconded by Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, 

Ross 0. Swimmer" on 2 October 1975. Voters approved the Constitution the next year in a tribal election, not a secretarially-supervised Federal 

election in a manner comporting with Federal regulations governing the 

conduct of OIWA and IRA elections (now at 25 c. F. R. Section 81). 

Article I of the CNO Constitution, "Federal Regulations, • stipulates 

that: 

[T)he Cherokee Nation shall never enact any law which is in 

conflict with any Federal law. 

Objectively speaking, the content and structure of the CNO Constitution 

itself flagrantly violated Federal law regarding reorganization of 

Oklahoma tribes, if reorganization under OIWA was the intent of the 

framers. However, Article I of the CNO Constitution, "Federal 

Regulations,• also stipulates that: 

The Cherokee Nation ~ an inseparable part of the Federal Union. 

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme law of the 

land; ... [Emphasis added] 

This language leads one to conclude that the CNO depends for its primary source of Constitutional, sovereign authority on the sovereign power of 

the United States, under the U. S. Constitution, and secondarily on the 

residual inherent powers remaining to the CNO since 1906, to the extent that Congress has restored those powers since the Agreement with the 

Cherokee Nation, 1 April 1900. Since CNO has not availed itself of the 

opportunity to reorganize under OIWA and IRA, the form of organization under which the Tribe now operates requires only secretarial condonation 

of the actions of a Principal Chief, whom CNO voters now select and may remove from office, operating under a governmental form of 

administrative convenience. The 1975 CNO Constitution, then, is a means for CNO to conduct business as other tribes do, while leaving the 1906 status quo of Federal management of, and authority over, Cherokee Nation 

affairs essentially intact. This means that, though selected by voters, 

the Principal Chief of Cherokee Nation is essentially a colonial Viceroy 

subject to the will of the U. S. Executive Branch. CNO's Constitution, at "Article XVIII. Adoption• stipulates that: 

This Constitution shall become effective when approved by the 

President of the United States or his authorized representative and 

when ratified by the qualified voters of the Cherokee Nation at an election conducted pursuant to rules and reyulations promulgated by 

the Principal Chief. 

The legal effect of this Article depends entirely on precisely the same 
161 

10 

presidential or secretarial deputization of the Cherokee Nation 

Principal Chief, and approval of the Principal Chief's actions, that 

Congress contemplated i n the 1906 Act. The 1975 CNO Constitution 

purported to supersede the 6 September 1839 Cherokee Nation Constitution 

(CNCA, "Article XVI. Supersedes Old Constitution 1839 , • stating , "The 

provisions of this Constitution overrule and supersede the provisions of 

the Cherokee Nation Constitution enacted the 6th day of September 

1839.") This simply reflects the common understanding that since the old 

Constitution was a dead letter in 1906, any new approved Constitution 

supersedes the old. 

Every other Oklahoma tribe that organized under OIWA and IRA had to 

obtai n secretarial approval of a Const i tution, then secretarial approval 

of an OIWA draft charter . Thirty percent of the qualified voters were 

then supposed to ratify a Const i tution , and then the Charter, in 

separate sequential Federal elections. By law, the Charters (not the 

Constitutions) of OIWA/ IRA organized Oklahoma Indian tribes delineate 

most of the powers of such tri bes. CNCA, the annotated Code of Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma, contains the 1975 Constitution, code . treaties. 

agreements, and Self-Determination legislation, and even the 24 January 

1983 speech of President Reagan on Indian Policy, but one searches in 

vain for any mention of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act or the Indian 

Reorganization Act because the CNO Constitution evolved largely outside 

the body of modern Federal-Indian law which is mandatory for other 

Oklahoma tribes, including the UKB. Despite occasional explorations of 

the possibility of reorganizing , Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma never has 

proposed or received an OIWA Charter from the Secretary of the Interior, 

or submitted its approved Constitution to a secretarially-supervised 

election as the OIWA, 25 C. F. R. 81, and 25 U. S. C. 476 / 479 of the IRA 

require. 

In contrast, in helping to draft the UKB Charter of 1950, the BIA 

ordered the UKB to design the document so that the UKB itself could 

extend such a Charter to an organization composing the non-Keetoowah 

Dawes enrollees of Cherokee Nation. Oddly enough, until the UKB alters 

its Constitution to make l/4 Cherokee blood quantum mandatory for future 

members under the proposed Amendments, the Cherokee Dawes Roll 

descendency group composing the population of Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma still has the right. in theory, to apply for reorganization 

under UKB jurisdiction, with the consent of the UKB Council. Of course, 

to date, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma never has sought an OIWA 

charter through the UKB. In 1950 , the Secretary declared, in approving 

the UKB Charter, Constitution and By-laws, that "All officers and 

employees of the Interior Department are ordered to abide by the 

.provisions of the said [UKB] Constitution and By-laws.• [Letter, 9 May 

1950, William E. Warne, Assistant Secretary, approving the Constitution 

and By-laws. •: IV] Recall that the CNO Constitution, Article I, 

"Federal Regulations,• stipulates: 

[T]he Cherokee Nation shall never enact any law which is in 

conflict with any Federal law . (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

Constitution, ~. 2 October 1975) 

Cherokee Nation's laws attacking the sovereign rights of the UKB plainly 

violate Federal law. Neither Congress nor the BIA appear to care. If the Constitution of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has any legal 
162 

11 

effect, then the actions of CNO toward the UKB since 1975 which 

contradict the organic documents or laws of UKB are entirely !!!tt2 

vires. CNO refuses to recognize the existence of the UKB, while claiming tila"t" the UKB and its members are citizens and subjects of CNO. The 

Keetoowah Band, which now is the UKB. remained when the Old Cherokee 

Nation Constitution was revoked in 1906. The Cherokee Nation's claims of 

jurisdiction over the UKB died with the old organization, though the 

Cherokee Nation or Tribe continued to exist for certain purposes as the 

1906 Act provides. 

The reorganization of the UKB under OIWA and IRA affirmed 

conclusively the separate sovereign interests and identity of the UKB. 

(Recall that Article XVI of the 1975 CNO Constitution expressly 

overruled and superseded "the provisions of the Cherokee Nation 

Constitution enacted the 6th day of September 1839.") Nothing in the CNO 

Constitution expressly recognizes the UKB or its members or entitles 

them to membership or registration in CNO. In contrast, while 

recognizing the Delaware Tribe as a part of CNO which is allowed 

separate organization under CNO subject to CNO authority, CNO bars the 

Delaware Tribe from undertaking any actions contradicting the authority 

of CNO (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Constitution, CNCA, 2 October 1975) 

Congress has restored certain powers to CNO since 1937, thereby 

making it easier for CNO to function without reorganizing the Cherokee 

Tribe under an OIWA/IRA government. The BIA and Congress have limited 

the effects of pre-1096 legislation on the Cherokee Nation in ways. that 

have allowed CNO to exercise aspects of sovereignty that Congress had 

diminished or restricted in 1906, including aspects of criminal and 

civil jurisdiction. In 1991 (proving that despite all the self-righteous 

cant to the contrary, Lobbying is all), Congress extended permission in 

Amendment 86 to P. L. 101-116 for CNO to undermine the property and 

governmental rights of the UKB. The impact on UKB and its members has 

been dangerously discriminatory. The effect is the confiscation of a vested property right without due process. 

* * * The bar against UKB's eligibility for any Federal funding, 

including funds from the Administration for Native Americans, may be 

permanent. At the same time that the BIA conceded the Band's existence as an autonomous entity (24 August 1992), the BIA also acknowledged the 

Band's eligibility to receive land in trust. From then on, the CNO 

undertook a campaign with the support of the Oklahoma delegation to assure that the UKB will have no opportunity to acquire land in trust in 

any other state. On 26 January 1993, Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller of 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma included the UKB in a list of some 40 

unrecognized petitioning groups claiming Cherokee extraction in an advisory letter to governors in their respective states, althOUgh the name of the UKB appears on the Federal Register listing of recognized 

tribes. The official excuse from CNO spokesperson Mr. Lee Fleming for 

this flagrant misrepresentation was that the letter was intended "for 

information• only, and therefore. CNO could not be held responsible. To 

the contrary, Chief Ma~killer's shield is sovereign immunity, since her 

letter purported to be an official intergovernmental communication. The 

UKB has received no gesture of apology or retraction for this •error,• 

and shall receive none. The actions of CNO require the approval of the 
163 

12 

Secretary; therefore, these calcul ated attacks have the official 

authorization of the Secretary . 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, ever confident that political pressure 

eventually will lead to the congressi onal revocation of the UKE Charter 

or to a requirement that the UKE submit to the acknowledgment process at 

25 CFR 83 , already have characterized the UKE in deliberately fraudulent 

public statements as a petitioner for acknowledgment . In a determination 

published in the body of the Proposed Rule Regarding Department of 

Interior Policy on Recognition of Indian Tribes, Vol. 56 , No . 161. 

Federal Register 47320 (Sept. 18, 1991) , the Secretary finally declared 

that when any third party attacks the status of a federally-recognized 

tribe, the Department will protect only tribes who have survived the 25 

CFR 83 process; any other tribe ' s only recourse is to use the Federal 

acknowledgment process to vindicate itself. CNO has tried and failed 

repeatedly to force the UKE to submit to the tests of the acknowledgment 

process to · eliminate t he Band . At this point , the UKE , though a 

recognized tribe, is ineligible even to apply for funds for status 

clarification from the Administrati on for Nat i ve Americans for which 

unrecognized tribes are eligible due to CNO ' s intervention. The UKB's 

status problems stem entirely from the perception that the UKB competes 

with CNO, and from the false percepti on that both share the identically 

same population; ironically, that competitive atmosphere emanated 

directly from CNO's decision to eliminate the UKB. 
164 

13 

THE NON-PETITION OF THE NON-TERMINATED, TERMINATED , UNACI<NOWLEDGED 

UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA FOR RESTORATION 

UNDER 25 C. F. R. 83 (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION) 

In 1990 and 1991, Principal Chief Wilma P . Mankiller demanded of 

the BIA and Congress that the UKB be compelled against their own will 

and best interests to submit to the Federal acknowledgment process to prove their status as a tribe. Initially, she demanded congressional 

hearings that would compel the Band to produce, in effect, a complete 

documented petition seeking acknowledgment. Having achieved the de-facto 

termination of the Band in the passage of Amendment 86 toP. L. 101- 116, 

she did an about-face, claimed in a letter to the appropriate 

congressional leaders and committees that neither CNO nor the UKB wanted a hearing on the matter in spring of 1992 in Tahlequah, and that Chief 

John Ross had agreed to send a similar request. Chief Ross never made 

such an agreement and never sent any such letter. The narrative and bibliographies below will address the criteria 

f o r acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83 . 7 that require the Band to prove that 

i t : (a} [Has been i]dentified from historical times until the present on a substantially continuous basis, as "American Indian, • or "Aboriginal;"(b) [Is a Tribe, a substantial portion of which 

inhabits] a specific area or [lives] as a coJDJDunity viewed as American Indian and distinct from other populations in the area and 

[prove that its] members are descendants of an Indian tribe which 

historically inhabited a specifi c area; 

( c) Has maintained tribal political influence or other authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until 

the present ; · (d) Provides a copy of a governing document or statement describing 

in full the membership criteria and procedures through which the 

group currently governs its affairs and its members; 

(e ) Has membership consisting of individuals who have established 

descendancy from a tribe which existed historically or from 

historical tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous entity; 

( f} Has membership composed principally of persons who are not members of any other tribe; and, 

(g) Is not expressly terminated or otherwise forbidden to participate in the federal-Indian relationship by statute . The Band has met criterion 25 CFR 83 . 7, in that the Band has provided on many occasions to all interested parties and the public: 

(d) ... a copy of a governing document or statement describing in 

full the membership criteria and procedures through which the group 

currently governs its affairs and its members,• consisting of a 3 

October 1950 Charter, a 3 October 1950 Constitution and By-laws, over 50 years of resolutions, ordinances and statutes, a 1949 Base 

Roll as amended in 1985 , and continuing enrollment updates between 

1949 and the present. 

Other membership- related criteria of 25 CFR 83 . 7 require the Band to show that it: 

(e) "Has membership consisting of individuals who have established 
165 

14 

descendancy from a tribe which existed historically or from 

historical tribes which combined and functioned as a single , autonomous entity;• namely, the Keetoowah Band of Indians of the 

Cherokee Tribe; and, 

(f) "Has membership composed principally of persons who are not 

members of any other tribe." 

The narrative will address criterion (g) later. United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma aeets the 

criteria the Acknowledgment and Research Branch of the BIA uses for 

determining existence an Indian Tribe (25 C.F.R. 83.1-11, redesignated 

1985). The following section applies historical Federal, tribal and 

other records to demonstrate that the Band can satisfy the requirements of 25 Code of Federal Regulations Sec . 83. 7 (a) -(g). Bibliographical 

citations are in the full narrative and appendices. Below appears a summary of the accompanying narrative, establishing · the evidence 

supporting the Band's contention that it meets the following criteria 

for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7. The UKB will demonstrate that the 

Band: 

(a) "[Has been i]dentified from historical times until the present on a substantially continuous basis, as • American Indian, ' or 'Aboriginal,'" as cited in Federal, Territory, State, Tribal 

records and scholarly sources; 

(b) [Is a Tribe, a substantial portion of which inhabits] a specific area or [lives] as a community viewed as American Indian 

and distinct from other populations in the area and [prove that 

its] members are descendants of an Indian tribe which historically 

inhabited a specific area,• as cited in Federal, Territory, State, 

Tribal records and scholarly sources; and, 

(c) "Has maintained tribal political influence or other authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until 

the present,• as cited in Federal, Territory, State, Tribal records 

and scholarly sources. In the narrative , a note ("a", "b", and/or "c") follows each statement, 

indicating which one or more of these criteria that particular statement 

addresses. The Brief UKB Chronology covers the same basic points. 

1. At the old Mother Town of Keetoowah in Swain County and its 

affiliated smaller towns, North Carolina, political succession continued 

through elected Captains and a Chief (pre-contact until about 1833; a, 

b, c). 

2. The Keetoowah Indians, despite great disruption of their culture 

and political town structure between the American Revolution and the 

Removal period, retained as much as they could of their primary rules 

and ways, by enforcing traditional laws through customary sanctions and 

the law of blood (a, c). 

3. Following their removal to Indian Territory with the Old Settlers 

(mostly between 1805 and 1835; a, c) as well as Eastern Emigrants (1835-

1840; a , c), the Keetoowah Indians reorganized tinder a Constitution in 

1858 in Oklahoma, drawing in Keetoowah ' adherents from all nine 

Districts, but primarily fr011 the region co•posing five northeastern 

Oklahoma counties today (b). 

4. The Keetoowah Indians called their organization the Keetoowah 

Society, and throughout the nine Districts, they worked to resume the 
166 

15 

role the Mother Town of Keetoowah en j oyed in pre-contact and ·pre-Removal 

historical times under the leadership of local headmen called "Captains• 

and a Head Captain or "Chief " (a , b , c). 

5. As early as the Civil War , conflicts arose about the purposes and 

directions of .t he organization , so that while some Keetoowahs wanted to preserve the anc i ent Keetoowah culture, language and religion in pure 

form as possible , others preferred to amalgamate the old ways with what 

they wanted from non-Indian culture , including christian churches (a) . Indeed, the fol l owers of the Jones family of church leaders were i nstrumental in the reorganization of the Keetoowahs in the 1850s (a ) . 

6 . In thei r eff ort s to pres~r e the Keetoowah group as a political 

entity, some factions preferred a more militant role in opposing the 

Southern Confederacy , particularly the so-called "Pin Indians; • but all 

loyal Keetoowahs supported the Union (a, c). 

7. While the Keetoowah Indians remained loyal to the end of the Civil 

War, they shared the common humiliation of all Cherokees resulting from 

t he punishment of Cherokee Nation for its offici al position of siding wi th the Southern Confederacy (a , c ). 

8. The Treaty of 1866 abrogated all earlier treaties to the extent they were inconsi stent with the 1866 Treaty. The Keetoowah delegates to the Treaty convention very reluctantly signed (a, b , c). 

9. When congressional investigations led to the discovery of 

widespread corruption in the Indian Service and the Five Tribes 

governments, and when proponents of Oklahoma statehood pressed for 

elimination of the original tribal governments, the Keetoowah Indians 

had to make di ffi cult decisions regarding the direction of .the tribe (a, 

c) . 

10. While they i ntended to maintain a tribal government and functions 

regardless of the fate of the Cherokee Nation as a whole, the Keetoowah 

Society eventually acquiesced to the Agreement with the Cherokee Nation, 

April l, 1900 , the Curtis Act and the 1906 Act, to the political 

dissolution of the corrupt Cherokee government that the Keetoowahs 

loathed anyway, and to the allotment in severalty of Cherokee lands (a, 

b , C). 

11. When Cherokee Nation was dissolved, members of the Society lived 

throughout most of the old Cherokee districts (but with small 

constituencies in Cooweescoowee and Canadian Districts; a, b, c). 

12 . Many Keetoowahs regarded the prospect of allotment of the Tribe's 

lands in severalty as so calamitous that they withdrew from the 

Keetoowah Society (a, b). Several hundred of these Keetoowah Indians 

formed a nwnber of secretive, traditionalist, exclusive factions as early as 1893 , including the Nighthawk Keetoowahs, that refused until 

1910 or later to accept the work of the Dawes Commission (a, b). These 

groups were clustered around Gore and Vian, in Sequoyah County. 13 . In 1905, knowing that the Cherokee Nation was about to dissolve for 

useful purposes, the Keetoowah Society reorganized. Using a Federal 

Corporate Charter from the Territorial District Court in Tahlequah, as the Keetoowah Society, Inc . , this faction attempted to function as a polity composed of a Chief and Council ( 20 September 1905) for the 

express purpose of carrying on the political and social functions of a 

Band, but because it omitted opposing factions that arose after 1900, never fully again represented the interests of the Keetoowah Indians as 
167 

16 

a body (a, b , c). 

14. The other main faction , the Nighthawks , some of whose leaders now 

erroneously claim the UKB is a splinter of their religious cult , 

withdrew from political activity and barred its members from affiliation 

with any other groups or entities, including christian churches (a, b, 

c). 

15. As the number of tribal towns associated with the Nighthawks 

dwindled between 21 in about 1900 to 3 in 1937 , the remnants of the 

"non-political" Nighthawk faction eventually split i nto a variety of 

factions, including two ceremonial grounds run by factions of Redbird 

Smith and his family, as well as the Goingsnake "Seven Clans" fire and 

the Four Mothers Nation. Other Cherokee political factions of Keetoowahs 

arose, partly due to concerns about potential claims, partly to organize 

formally as a Tribe. These factions of Oklahoma J<eetoowah Cherokees 

pulled together a coalition from the northern 14 counties of Oklahoma 

between 1920 and 1924 to elect a Chief (Levi Gritts) , and an Executive 

Council (a , b , c ). 

16. During the 1930s, the J<eetoowah factions, now without any support 

from several dwindling groups of Nighthawk separatists. supported the 

idea of reorganizing all the Keetoowah Cherokees in all the old clan 

districts as a united Band. They hoped to avail themse1 ves of the 

bene£ its of the proposed Indian Reorganization Act. At a hearing in 

Muskogee on 22 March 1934, Keetoowahs showed up in force to present John 

Collier and his staff with a formal petition and letter of endorsement 

for the Bill (a, b, c). Collier complemented the Keetoowah Band's 

enthusiasm and understanding for reorganization in a variety of writings 

and press releases. Felix Cohen, Associate Solicitor for the Department 

of the Interior, carefully moni tared their public , highly organized 

efforts in support of IRA (a, c). 

17. The Land Division in the Department of the Interior concluded in 

1934 that while the Cherokee Nation was neither interested in 

reorganizing because most members had abandoned tribal relations, nor 

even capable of doing so, the J<eetoowah Indians were willing and 

probably able to reorganize in Oklahoma with great success, if the 

factions would only pull together (a, b, c). 

18. Though the participation of Oklahoma Indians in the IRA was not 

possible until the Thomas Bill of 1936 enabled reorganization under IRA 

through the OIWA , the Keetoowahs never lost sight of their goal, and the 

J<eetoowah Society , Inc . , sought permission to represent the J<eetoowah 

Indians, including the various factions whose members refused to join 

the Keetoowah Society, Inc . (a , b , c). This effort faltered briefly when 

Associate Solicitor Frederick J<irgis issued his Keetoowah Society 

Opinion i n 1937, saying that the Society, standing alone, was only a 

society of the Keetoowah Indians, not a Band [Opinions of the Solicitor 

of the Department of the Interior Relating to Indian Affairs: 1917-1974, 

Vol . I (Washington, D. C.: u . s. Department of the Interior, 1975) , p. 

774] {a, b, c). 

19. Undeterred, the Keetoowah Indians began working with the 

Organization Field Agents through Five Tribes Agency after 1937. It was 

only after the Kirgis Opi nion that BIA's Five Civilized Tribes Regional 

Organization Director A. c. Monahan learned that the Keetoowah Society, 

Inc . , was the source for all the other factions, and that the 
168 

17 

Corporation had held a Federal Corporate Charter as a political entity since 20 September 1905. Monahan ordered agents Dwight and Exendine to 

aid the factions to reorganize. D'Arcy McNickle's determination of 24 

April 1944 found the UKB was a historical tribe. Rather than merely ask 

the Solicitor to rewrite the opinion, the Acting Secretary, Abe Fortas, 

to request congressional action allowing the UK8 to reorganize under 

OIWA and IRA. 

20. The UKB adopted a Constitution and By-laws. They elected officers 

between 1939 and 1946. seating a Chief, Reverend John Hitcher, and a Council (a, b, c). Work among various factions united most Keetoowahs 

(a, b, c). 

21. Some Five Civilized Tribes Agency employees hoped to use the Band as a vehicle for restoring the Old Cherokee Nation, or at least for 

reorganizing all the Cherokee Dawes Commission enrollees and their 

descendants under OIWA and .IRA, because the Director of Lands, Land 

Division, Department of· the Interior, already had decided that while the 

Cherokee Nation was not terminated, any new organization of the Cherokee 

Tribe would have to be an entirely new entity whose property rights 

would stem from the OIWA and IRA. [(MEMO TO INDIAN ORGANIZATION, 25 

October 1937, from Director of Lands (WOW) to Daiker, Indian 

Organization (163618); see also Solicitor's Opinion, 1 October 1941, 1 

Op. Sol. on Indian Affairs 1076 (U. S. D. I. 1979)] 

22. The Secretary determined that an organization of the Keetoowah 

Band, made by reuniting the various Keetoowah factions who wanted to 

participate, does not conflict with the residual government of the 

Cherokee Nation. The latter was to retain its 1907 status, as a body 

under a Principal Chief whom the President ·(later, the Secretary of the 

Interior) appointed to carry out responsibilities regarding the 

disposition of the assets of the Old Cherokee Nation (a, b, c). 

23. The UKB carried out its own governmental functions in Oklahoma as a reorganized body, without interfering with the Cherokee Nation, its 

Principal Chief or his functions, because the UKB interests in Cherokeerelated issues was entirely restricted to interests of the UKB 

constituency. That constituency consisted primarily of restricted 

Indians. non-Dawes enrollees, and other Keetoowahs who remained loyal to 

the Keetoowah political ideals (a, b, c). 

24. So, the United Keetoowahs finally decided by 1942 to remain 

exclusively a "Keetoowah" polity that would include only those of 

Cherokee descent who met the membership requirements of the united Band 

(a. b, c) . On 24 April 1944, Assistant Commissioner D'Arcy McNickle 

found that the UKB was a historical tribe, and meeting with BIA's Chief 

Counsel on 5 June 1944, recommended that Congress pass legislation to 

clarify the UKB's status and right to reorganize as a tribe under OIWA 

and IRA. 

25. Since the UKB reorganization process could not begin until Congress agreed to offer the UKB the opportunity.to reorganize under OIWA and 

IRA, Acting Secretary Abe Fortas, Congressman Stigler and Senator 

Thomas, among others, supported the eff.ort, and on 10 August 1946, 

Congress did pass the Keetoowah Act as part of a package measure that 

included a gift of land to the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe in Oklahoma. The 

reorganization process took another four years (a, b). 

26. The UKB, incorporating all the factions of the Keetoowah Indians of 
169 

18 

the Cherokee Tribe throughout the n i ne distri c t s of the old Cherokee 

Reservation , has reposed its secular governmental authority in the line 

of democratically-elected Chiefs (also informally called, in the 1940s, 

"Presidents " ) Executive Officers and Tribal Council under its OIWA 

corporate Charter, Constitution and By-laws, since 3 October 1950 (a, b, 

c ) . 

27 . Between 3 October 1950 and 3 Oc tober 1960, while the Secretary 

retained approval authority over the UKB according to the UKB organic 

documents, the Sec r etary could have authorized the Principal Chief of 

Cherokee Nation to act as the Secretary ' s agent in approving oecisions 

of the UKB ; but the Secretary made no such delegation of authority to 

Pri ncipal Chief Keeler . Any such de l egation of authority would have 

expired on 3 October 1950, according to the Department's own 

determination (see Letter, 15 October 1961, from Assistant Chief Tribal 

Operations Officer Pennington to Muskogee Area Director Virgil N. 

Harrington, regarding Harrington's 7 August 1961 inquiry as to the 

effect of Sections 5, 6 of the UKB's Charter on secretarial approval 

authority after 3 October 1960 ). Finally , despite undocumented and 

spurious claims to the contrary, archival sources demonstrate that the 

Band has continued to survive and function as a tribal entity since 

reorganization under one unified government, despite internal 

factionalism characteristic of all governments (a, b, c). 

28. When the UKB Council attempted to establish tribal offices at 

various sites, and when the UKB created an Enterprise Board and 

attempted to engage in economic development ventures to serve its 

members and f i nance advocacy activities within the fourteen northeastern 

counties of Oklahoma, CNO consistently intervened and made off with the 

opportunity or spoiled it whenever possible , rationalizing that a UKB 

opportunity is a CNO opportunity. For example, the UKB attempted to 

develop a bingo business at Roland, Oklahoma, and had arranged an 

economic development plan and approached the BIA with a land acquisition 

request, the BIA denied the request, and promptly handed the business 

opportunity directly over to CNO . CNO easily obtained secretarial 

approval of their Roland land acquisition request, and now runs Bingo 

Outpost on the spot, while claiming that the UKB is unrecognized , 

selling sovereignty, and only wants recognition to do gaming. When the 

UKB established over a score of smokeshop operations throughout a threecounty region, CNO and the State cooperated to undermine and shut down 

all the operations.(a, b, c) 

29. In 1987, in the course of intervening to take over the UKB' s 

opportunity to buy an abandoned horserace track in Rogers County called 

Will Ro gers Downs, CNO retained a law firm to investigate CNO's legal 

status to determine whether it would be legally possible for CNO to engage in a horserace track operation. (DeGeer and Bread, "Federal 

Legislation Affecting Cherokee Nation,• Memo to Gene Stipe, Stipe Law 

Firm, McAlester, Oklahoma , 2 November 1987) This evaluation of the legal 

status of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as of Fall 1987 surveyed or contained: 

* Overview of the history of the laws impacting the Five 

Civilized Tribes 

* 19 Treaties with the U. S. (and limitations imposed therein) * Curtis Act of 1898 
* 1901 Cherokee Agreement 

* Cherokee Constitution 

* Jurisdictional Map 

170 

* Solicitor Opinions believed to be pertinent . 

19 

This analysis does not claim that CNO has reorganized under OIWA or IRA, 

referring instead to the 1906 Cherokee Nation Constitution, as 

superseded in the 1976 CNO Constitution, and the legal effect of various 

Acts of Congress preserving or limiting CNO's sovereign authorities. The 

memo describes limitations on the inherent sovereignty of the tribe that 

congressional legislati on has imposed since 1890, which only 

reorganization under OIWA and IRA could remedy. The memo does not deal 

with the relationship between the CNO and the UKB, doubtless because the 

authors realized the CNO has no sovereign authority over the UKB. The 

memo concluded that CNO ' s claims to inherent sovereignty are in doubt, 

and the writers recommended that CNO comply with all state laws, as a precaution, in any development venture.(a, b , c) -----

30. In 1990, a group of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma members called the 

Reformed Keetoowah Party attempted to sweep out the UK8 Council, 

claiming that the UKB was a subsidiary of CNO and never had been 

federally-recognized , and that the UKB was attempting to start a Civi l 

War in order to create a new tribe . An election contest and lawsuit 

marred John Ross's succession to the office of Chief. In November 1990 , 

at the urging of Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller, the BIA ' s Area Office 

directed staff to review files at the UKB Enrollment Office and compile 

a list of UKB members who never had registered voluntarily in CNO , 

finding over 3,000 living members with exclusive UK8 enrollment . CNO's 

continuous interference with internal UK8 politics, and an election 

dispute in 1990 resulted in a determination by the Department of the 

Interior to force the UKB to operate under a BIA approved Council , 

pending a new election. 

The 3 October 1950 Charter, approved by Secretary of the Interior 

William Warne on 9 May 1950, and the Constitution and By-laws, approved 

by a popular vote by · over 30% of qualified UKB members in a 

secretarially-authorized and supervised Federal election on 2 October 

1950, remain very much intact and effective. Due to secretarial 

acquiescence, the Band eliminated secretarial approval of its 

governmental acts as cited in their governing documents by operation of 

law on 3 October 1960. Also, the Charter, Constitution and By-laws, 

Enrollment Ordinances, Base Roll, and many updates as recommended by the 

Enrollment and Membership Committee and adopted by the Tribal Council in 

individual resolutions from 1950 to the present, show the membership 

criteria and procedures by which the Band has governed its affairs, 

regarding membership. 

The issue of UKB membership receives more extensive review below. 

It is sufficient here to add that the members of the UK8 Tribal Council 

always have participated in enrollment activities and in the 

verification of qualifications of prospective members, and always have 

approved enrollment updates through formal Council action. Tribal 

membership criteria have altered through the years, as conditions and 

needs have changed. The 1939 Roll , reaffirmed in 1949, became the 

foundation of the Base Roll, subject to amendment in the first five 

years after approval in 1950 . During that period, consistent with the 
171 

20 

1950 enrollment laws, members of 1/4 or more Cherokee ancestry, using 

the Dawes Roll or other acceptable proof of Cherokee ancestry by blood, were adopted into the Band. Enrollment activities continued for fifteen 

years. In 1963, the UKB Council worked on an updated roster as the 

result of additional membership field work, and for a short time, the 

enrollment ordinances required new members to prove 1/2 or more degree 

of Cherokee Indian blood. Enrollment work continued sporadically, until 

in 1978, when the UKB Council sought aid from Muskogee Agency to restore 

order following the latter years of Chief Glory's somewhat chaotic 

administration, and the Enrollment Committee started work on a new addition of adoptees, under a series of new ordinances. New additions to 

the Roll occurred through Council resolutions in 1980, and in another 

series of additions, concluding in October 1982. 

Using funds from a 1984-1986 $70,000 P. L. 93-638 grant to update 

and revise the Roll, the UKB reinvestigated and updated all members' 

files and brought their contents up to date, with the active cooperation 

of Muskogee Agency staff and technical assistance. Comporting with the 

terms of the grant, the Enrollment and Membership Committee and 

Enrollment Specialist compiled a list of all members who had met the 

blood quantua requirements in effect at the date of each individual 

member's enrollment, then verified which members were 1/4 or more degree, and which members had responded to requests for current 

information regarding residency, marital status, family status, and 

other information. The staff compiled information on deaths since the 

last enroll.ant update. Information regarding members whose files were incomplete as a result of this investigation, including those who ware considered less than l/4 degree Cherokee, appeared on a separate list of 

members whose files ware incomplete or so.ahow deficient, and yet who were considered entitled to lleWlership. The Band delivered these 

compilations to the Muskogee Agency in 1986, and submitted these records 

to Federal District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in Tulsa 

in 1987, upon subpoena by the State of Oklahoma , as a tribally-certified 

roll. Cordelia Tyner. a/k/a/ Cordelia Tyner Washington. and the United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. State of Oklahgaa. ez re .. David 

Moss. District AttorneY and David Moss. individually: M. Penise Grabam. 

~ 

individually, No. 87-2797, u. s. D. C., N. D., Oklahoma. See also: 

froa US. D. C., N.D. Okla. D. C. No. 87-C-29-E, 14 March 1991. 

UKB Membership Ordinance 90 UKB 9-16 16 Septeaber 1990 provided 

that any descendant of 1/4 Cherokee Indian blood of any enrollee on the 

1949 UKB Base Roll, or on any other historical Cherokee Roll, shall be 

eligible for enrollment in the UKB. Final determinations of Cherokee 

Indian blood quantum continue to rest with the UKB Tribal Council. Under 

that same ordinance, UKB aeabers who held affiliation of any kind with 

any other federally-acknowledged tribe were required to relinquish tha~ 

meabershi p. 
172 

21 

THE TERMINATION OF THE UKB 

For reasons that shall become evident below, tha UKB bas difficulty responding to the following criterion in 25 c. F. R. 83.7, requiring the 

Band to show that it: . · (g) Is not expressly terminated or otherwise forbidden to 

participate in the federal-Indian relationahip by statute. 

• • • 

In 1991, Congressman Mike Synar (2nd District, Oklcmo.a) cited in 

testimony to a congressional hearing a purported ~ BIA finding that 

the UKB had failed to perform is contractual duties under the ljj! 

grant. because it bad not separated registrees of CNO out of the UKB 

roll. ( u . S. Congress, House Interior and Insular Affaire Committee 

Hearings on 101-116 on FY 1992. Interior Appropriations, Unitld Klatogwah 

Band of Cherokee Nation (11 Apr11.1991)) Neither the bearing's Chair., 

Congressman Lea AuCoin, nor another witness, Mr. Ronald Eden, caught the 

patent logical inconsistency in the testi.any, in that it would be 

physically impossible for any ~loyee of tbe BIA, however prescient, to 

issue a finding in 1980 about a contracting party's performance on a grant that was not issued until four years later . .nd not COSipleted until 

six years later. Further, the alleged "finding• was entirely falaa. A 

simple perusal of the Grant Letter and Final Report from the UKB Council on the completion of the Enrollment Project would have allayed any real concerns of Congress that the UKB might be incapable of using P. L. 93-

638 funds properly. 

The real probl- was that CNO never wante4 the tJXB to have separate 

Federal funds, and certainly never wanted the tJXB to have a distinct 

Tribal Roll. Although the UKB has .ada repeated efforts to .ort out the 

Roll, and though in 1990 and 1993 . the UKB Tribal COUncil was able to 

obtain current information (from the Muskogee BiA Agency, not from CNO) 

regarding the number of UKB members registered at CNO, these numbers 

have continued to shift as UKB .-bars have att-pted to relinquish CNO 

registration. CNO has been distinctly uncooparati¥1 since 1980 as UKB 

has att~ted to develop an exclusive Roll. Tbe CliO actively ball 

encouraged UKB members to re-register after relinquishing their CNO 

registration, or bas refused to accept and record relinquis~ts (even 

of UKB officers and adllinistrators). In sooae cases, CNO bas issued 

apparently unsolicited original registration documents to VKB ..abers 

and their families who never have applied for registration with CMO in 

obvious attempts to keep records confused, and to substantiate their 

claims of dual affiliation. The UKS regularly denies contract services 

eligibility to UKB members when they atteapt to use their UKB 

credentials to qualify for services, demanding that SIAl% CliO credentials are valid. Individuals who offer UKB cr~tials in the first instance 

at CNO service agencies characteristically find great difficulty in 

receiving services afterwards, upon displaying valid CNO credentials. It 

clearly is inconsistent for CNO to claim the UKB Roll is duplicative of 

the CNO register, while CNO simultaneously denies the validity of the 

UKB Roll. However, as a rule, logical analysis rarely comes into play in 

CNO's discriminatory treatment of members of the UKB. 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has clai-d (since 1979) that all 

members of the UKB are eligible automatically for registration in 
173 

22 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, because Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

requires exclusivity of •registrati on• except for members of the UKB. 

This contenti on is untrue , among other reasons, because many UKB members are neither Dawes Commission Cherokee enrollees nor descendants . Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma also has contended (since 1984) that all 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma registrees were (technically) eligible for 

enrollment with the UKB . CNO is not competent to make this allegation , because UKB membership is a matter for the UKB Counci 1, not any 

official, Council, or agency of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma or of the U. S. to decide . In the Muskogee hearings for teh American Indian Policy 

Review Commission on 13 May 1976, Ross 0 . Swimmer testified, "I think 

that the tribe's right to define its own membership is extremely 

important."(AIPRC Final Report, 17 May 1977 , p . 522) The American Indian 

Policy Review Commission found: 

There are two specific problems facing the Five Civilized 

Tribes: (1) the reliance on the 1907 Dawes Commission rolls as the 

sole major determinant of the tri bal membership; and ( 2) the 

inclusion of the descendants of the freed slaves of the tribes, as a result of treaties made after the Civil War , on the tribal rolls. 

All descendants of those persons on the Dawes Commission rolls are considered tribal members for purposes of voting in tribal 

elections and referendums, and distribution of judgment moneys. 

Therefore, many persons of very little Indian blood are allowed to vote in tribal elections, making decisions which may affect their 

lives not at all, while affecting Indians greatly. 

The other membership problem plaguing the Indians of the Five 

Civilized Tribes is the inclusion of freedmen bands. After the 

Civil War, the reconstruction treaties of the tribes said that they 

would provide lands for their freedmen. These freedmen were given 

allotments which have long since passed into fee simple status. However, the descendants of these freedmen are considered tribal 

members because of the treaty provisions. It seems strange that the 

United States has violated almost every provision of those 1866 

treaties, yet it holds the Five Civilized Tribes to their word. 

Again, these people do not identify as Indians, the Federal 

Government does not recognized them as Indians, yet they make 

decisions affecting Indians. Clearly, Congress should allow the 

tribes a method for restricting their membership to persons of 

Indian descent rather than imposing a Federal definition based on descendancy from the Dawes Commission rolls. The final irony of the 

situation is that, although the tribes must keep the descendants 

from the Dawes Commission rolls for tribal political purposes, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs provides services only to tribal persons 

of one-quarter or more Indian blood.(Muskogee hearings, 13-14 May 

1977, AIPRC Final Report, 17 May 1977, p. 522) 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma allows registration for voting purposes for 

non-freedman Cherokees of any degree or source of Indian blood, while 

the UKB requires the class of future members (i.e., all those adopted 

after 1949) to demonstrate l/4 degree Cherokee Indian blood. 

Because Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma never has reorganized under an OIWA Charter and IRA Constitution, CNO cannot evade restrictions under 

the Act of 1906 preventing Cherokee Nation from adopting new enrollees, 
174 

23 

or a new !:Qll . The 1947 Act required those claiming descent from 

Cherokee Nation to demonstrate that descent by proving lines tracing 

from persons on the final Dawes Commission Roll of Cherokee Nation. The 

UKB are not similarly restricted, because the UKB is not part of or 

subordinate to Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma or subject to the authority 

of CNO's Principal Chief. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma contends that its 

reliance upon the Dawes Commissi on Roll to determine Cherokee descent 

and its registration of Cherokee Dawes descendants is as good as the 

formal adoption of a Roll. for the purposes of proving dual affiliation 

of UKB members; but the Dawes Roll is not the UKB Base Ro.ll. CNO never adopted any new Roll, or even updated the Cherokee Dawes Roll, which 

closed on 4 March 1907. When the last of the Cherokee Dawes Roll 

enrollees dies. the closed Roll will be vacant. CNO never provided for 

formal adoption of any UKE members individually or corporately, as members of an adoption class, as CNO did in the case of the Delaware 

Dawes enrollees. Therefore, looking to the precedent of Secretary Manuel 

Lujan's San Juan Southern Paiute determination (1989), like the Navajo 

Tribe in the early 1980s, CNO today has no real tribal roll, except for 

the original Cherokee Dawes Roll. 

In attempting to comply with the terms of the 1984 P. L. 93-638 

Enrollment Update Grant, GOBG14204002 , the Band's Registrar initially 

requested the Department's permission to rely on the 1907 Cherokee Dawes 

Commission Roll for information. The Band lacked access to their own enrollment records , the original copies of which had been in Federal 

custody since 1950.( Letter, 9 January 1985, Jane E. McGeisey, Registrar, 

United Keetoowah Band, to BIA, Tahlequah Agency , re: "Updating from 1949 

Base Roll") This letter is the only plausible source we know for the 

allegation that the United Keetoowah Band ever was substantially out of 

compliance with the terms of the 1984 P. L. 93-638 Grant. although the 

Band resolved the problem by relying primarily on the 1949 United 

Keetoowah Band Base Roll. The Department's response was unambiguously 

clear in saying that the United Keetoowah Band's Base Roll is not, and cannot be, the 1907 Cherokee Dawes Commission Roll: 

A memorandum from the tribal registrar is being returned to you due to non-compliance with the present grant. You are locked in with 

the 1949 base roll as required by the terms of the present grant. 

This situation can be cleared up with the Muskogee Area Office 

Tribal Operations staff when they are assigned for technical 

assistance to assist the United Keetoowah Band in the enrollment 

process shortly.(~. 23 January 1985, Acting Superintendent 

Cecil Shipp, Tahlequah Agency , Bureau of Indian Affairs, to Chief 

John Hair, United Keetoowah Band; emphasis added) 

Upon being assigned to supply technical assistance to the Band, the BIA 

Muskogee Area Tribal Operations staff should have supplied the United 

Keetoowah Band's Registrar with access to, if not copies of, the 

materials in the 1949 United Keetoowah Band Roll Card File. 

Correspondence in the NARA, Washington, D. C., shows that the BIA 

took custody of the 1949-1950 Card File supporting the United Keetoowah 

Band's 1949 Roll in 1950. However, the Band was unable to find or use these materials in compiling the enrollment update, and the BIA made no disclosure to the Band regarding the location of the Card File. For 

records on receipt and storage of records relating to the enrollment and 
175 

24 

reorganization of the United Keetoowah Band , see generally: Central 

Classified Files of the BIA, Department of the Interior. Box 330. 

Accessions 57A-185. Records for 1948-1952 . Cherokee Nation. 00-219 

(010.-020.; 050.-059., Box# 12), File# 43292; originally in Box# 36, 

Accessions 56A-588, 1-58, 14 / 46:49-1, 1946. Transmittal letters of Area 

Director W. 0. Roberts, Five Civilized Tribes, attest to the receipt and 

archiving of these materials. 

Between November 1984 and March 1986, UKB enrollment staff and 

members of the UKB Tribal Council compiled a list of all members who had met the membership requirements in effect at the date of each individual 

member ' s enrollment , including those on the 1949 Roll. Lacking the 1949 

Card File , the Band replaced applications for all 1949 enrollees, as well as all enrolled since them whose file jackets were incomplete, 

defective or missing . The Band verified which members were 1/4 degree 

Indian blood or more, for whom current addresses and other information was absent, or whose status as active members was otherwise uncertain. 

The enrollment staff updated all files and compiled two final lists of current members as of 1986, including the most current information 

regarding residency , marital status and the like. The project staff also 

compiled information on deaths since the last enrollment update. 

At the end of the project , the Band prepared a current (1986) Roll 

of full members in good standing confirmed by the Council to be of 1/ 4 

degree Cherokee Indian blood or more. The Band approved a separate list 

including Associate or Honorary members, and full members who at one time had been in good standing but whose files still were incomplete or deficient at the end of the Grant. Some files were impossible to update 

despite good faith efforts by the staff and Council {due to the members' 

failure to respond to inquiries and supply a current address, or due to uncertainty whether the persons even were alive). Some Associate Members 

enrolled since 1949 moved to the 1986 list of Full Members in good 

standing, due to blood quantum clarifications. The f i nal count from the 

enrollment office was 1376 UKB 1949 members . Of the 1949 files, 764 were amended or updated, either by revised application or proof of demise. 

The new total, including the 1949 Base Roll and 1986 Current Roll, was 6, 050. The UKB completed the 1949 United Keetoowah Band enrollment 

update, and the Tribal Council certified the enrollment update and the new 1986 Membership Roll on 15 March 1986 . The Band transmitted the updated 1949 Roll, the newly approved and 

duly adopted 1986 Membership Roll, and the Final Report of P. L. 93-638 

Grant G08Gl42002 to the BIA's Muskogee office as a deliverable on 16 

March 1986 . The Band submitted these records to Federal District Court 

with a cover note from the BIA Muskogee Area Office, in the course in 

litigation in 1987 in Cordelia Tyner . a/kfa/ Cordelia Tyner Washington. 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. State of Oklahoma. ex re .. David Moss. District Attorney and David Moss. individually; M. 

Denise Graham. individually, No. 87-2797, U. S. D. C. , N.D., Oklahoma . , when the State subpoenaed a copy of the Band's tribally-certified roll. 

After the completion of the enrollment project, a series of burglaries 

and incidents of vandalism occurred at the UKB headquarters in 

Tahlequah , resulting in damage to or destruction of some files and other 

property . However, all members' files predating 15 March 1986 had been 

certified already as to their status as of that date. Also , increased 
176 

25 

security at the tribal offices and continuing ~pdating of files in the course of conversion of the enrollment system to automation has improved 

record-keeping. 

Finally, in 1990, after a systematic review of the United Keetoowah 

Band's enrollment and membership files (ana a comparison of those data 

with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma's data), the BIA Muskogee Area 

Office confirmed, that more than 3,000 members of the United Keetoowah 

Band, including its Base Enrollees, ~were registered with Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma, and therefore ~had any form of dual affiliation 

with that entity. Some 4, 700 UKB members either ~ voluntarily 

registered with Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, or once were registered 

(voluntarily or involuntarily), but subsequently voluntarily 

relinquished their CNO registration. Since 1950, the UKB has ~ontinued 

to add to its open Roll, and in 1990 adopted a new Enrollment and 

Membership ordinance, which as amended, continues in effect. Since 1990, over 450 enrolled members of the Band voluntarily have relinquished 

their affiliation with any other Indian entity. Hundreds of the original 

UKB members and Dawes enrollees who had registration or membership in 

CNO have died. On 24 July 1992, Rosella C. Garbow, Muskogee Area Tribal 

Operations Officer, declared: 

This is to certify that records created in 1985 show that the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma has 

approximately 4, 700 enrolled members residing within their service area. 

UKB members have continued to relinquish their affiliation voluntarily 

with any other federally-recognized tribe since that date. The 1986 

United Keetoowah Band Roll, completed during the P. L. 93-638 grant, was known to be an official Tribal Roll for all purposes, duly adopted by 

the Tribal Council, and authenticated by the BIA, within the meaning of 

Federal Indian Law, in 1991. It is up-to-date, and there are regular 

monthly additions through adoption, and clarifications of exclusive 

affiliation through relinquishment from Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. 

Regardless of Dawes descendency, it is the policy of the United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma tbat all lineal 

descendants of the 1949 Base Roll and current roll are automatically 

eligible for membership in the Band. The UKB hoped that tha enrollment 

update and other status clarification efforts would result in separation 

of their population from CNO's, and would lead to the development of a UKB land base and separate programs. However, a separation of the two 

populations required the cooperation of CNO, and that was impossible for 

the UKB to obtain. As a result, the UKB must continue to finance 

litigation to obtain a clarification of their political and economic 

rights. In January 1993, the UKB Council has asked the Secretary to convene a secretarially-supervised Federal election to a.end the UKB 

Constitution, requiring l/4 Cherokee blood and exclusive enrollment in 

the UKB as qualifications of future membership, while requiring current 

members to relinquish affiliation in any other tribe by a set data. 

Having reviewed the history of the UKB in brief, the reader should 

perceive readily the problems with Mr. Ron Eden's teati.any to 

Congressman Aucoin's committee in April 1991 [at the U. S. Rouse 

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Hearings on 101-116 on FY 1992 

Interior Appropriations, United Keetoowah 8and of Cbarokee Nation (11 
177 

26 

April 1991)]. The hearing record contained a brief discussion of the 

BIA' s reasons for moving to rescind the 16 January 1980 ~ of 

Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard. Gerard's policy prevented separate 

services and land acquisition for the United Keetoowah Band and the 

Creek Tribal Towns. The speakers commented on the autonomous status of 

the United Keetoowah Band organized under the 1934, 1936 and 1946 Acts. 

Chairman Aucoin then cited what purported to be the Department's own long-standing determination that the Band had failed to carry out its 

contractual obligations under one P. L. 93-638 grant. Realizing that 

Eden was loath to agree that the Band was unrecognized or did not deserve recognition, Congressman Aucoin suggested that notwithstanding 

other law or equities, the Band did not deserve a chance to contract 

services for the benefit of the Band: 

Just one second, Mr. Eden. In 1980, looking at Mr. Synar's 

background information, he says on page 4 of his background paper 

that, "In 1980, upon reviewing a funding request from the UKB, the 

Department of the Interior issued the following policy.• This is not the full quote but the conclusion of the quote : There is no justification for contracts and/or grants with UKB to provide the same services to those portions of the Cherokee 

Nation which would be served under the Nation's contracts and/or grants. The only funding the BIA issued was a 1984 

grant of $70,000 to help the UKB establish a tribal roll and 

identify its unique service population. To date, however, the 

BIA has concluded that the UKB has failed to accomplish either 

task. 

What about that? 

Mr. Eden. Correct. 

Mr. AuCoin. Those are the Department's own words in 1980. 

Mr. Eden. Well , that is the policy that we're talking about as a result of the membership of the Cherokee Nation and the Keetoowah 

Band having the same enrollment criteria and traced to the same base roll. That was the reason that essentially the Gerard policy 

was put in place. 

Mr. AuCoin. Why did you change the policy then? 

Mr. Eden. Well, we started out changing the policy because of 

another tribal issue; namely, that the Creek towns did not want to continue receiving their services from the Creek Nation. [U. S. 

Congress, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Hearings on 101-116 on FY 1992 Interior Appropriations, United Keet00wah Band 

of Cherokee Nation (11 April 1991); emphasis added] 

The date "1980" appears several times in this testimony, always alluding to a finding of the Department supposedly made that year regarding the 

Band's competency to carry out contractual obligations. Eden twice 

expressly confirmed the existence of that determination in "the 

Department's own words.• Eden did not address the discrepency between 

the date of the alleged negative "finding• and the date the grant was awarded, much less admit the "finding• never existed. The "finding" was a citation in Cherokee Nation's briefing materials supplied to the 

Committee and the BIA. What is most surprising is that evidently, no one· at the hearing noticed the falsehood due to a strictly •ends-oriented" 

agenda. 
178 

27 

Recall Muskogee Area Tribal Operations Officer Rosella c. Garbow's 

24 July 1992 finding that the UKB has an Oklahoma resident population. 

and service area population, of 4, 700, of whom nearly 4,000 now are exclusive UKB members. The Band received Ron Eden's 24 August 1992 

determination as Acting Assistant Secretary that the UKB is an autonomous, federally-recognized American Indian Tribe, entitled to 

separate services and land acquisition in Oklahoma. The ~ "1980 

decision of the BIA" only would be significant -- if it existed -- because it purported to reflect on the question whether the Band 

deserved to serve its own needs, or whether the Band and its members 

should be compelled to rely on Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma for programs 

and services. The implication is that the Band was incapable of meeting 

contractual obligations. The alleged BIA determination obviously could 

not have been a 1980 "decision• by the Department of the Interior on the 

UKB's ability to provide satisfactory performance on a 26 November 1984 

P. L. 93-638 grant . The purpose of the 1984 grant was not to enable the Band to 

'identify [the UKB']s unique service population,• simply by declaring 

the roll exclusive, once complete. The purpose of the grant was to allow 

the UKB to update and verify the contents of individual members' files, 

in order to correct the 1949 Base Roll and to update the current roll so that the Band could identify its exclusive membership.(~, 24 July 

1992, Area Tribal Operations Officer Rosella C. Garbow TO WHOM IT MAY 

CONCERN) Without additional clarification from the records of CNO 

registration, as confirmed by the BIA after the completion of the 

project, identification of the unique UKB service population (comprised 

of those who never had been citizens of any other recognized tribe, and 

who had relinquished any CNO status) would have been impossible. 

Identifying the UKB ' s unique population has continued to be Challenging 

since 1986, because CNO routinely re-registers UKB ..-hera who 

relinquish CNO registration, without their consent or knowledge. CNO now requires UKB members to "show good cause• and imposes a 180-day waiting 

period before honoring relinquishments. With people supposedly clamoring 

to register with CNO and over 150, 000 on the CNO registry, it is 

amazingly difficult for UKB members to prevent CNO from registering against their will. 

Apparently, Congressman Synar ' s briefing book did 1!2! contain a copy of the P. L. 93-638 contract letter to the UKB, correspondence and 

reports generated during the project. or the Band • a voluminous Final 

Report on the Grant, because that document would have shown the purpose 

of the Grant and its successful completion. The BIA and Congress ignored 

the Band's submission of the Final Report, the amended 1949 Base Roll 

and updated 1986 Roll. Congressman Aucoin concluded with a final 

question: 

[A]ssuming no enactment in 1946 or any other year allowing the UKB 

to organize under section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 

would or could the BIA recognize the UKB as a new tribe or band? 

Amplify that for the record because obviously Mr . Synar believes 

that there may be the need for a record to be laid and perhaps 

legislation to be amended. [U. S. Congress, House Interior and 

Insular Affairs Committee Hearings on 101-116 on FY 1992 Interior 

Appropriations, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Nation (11 April 
179 

28 

1991)] 

The only item the BIA used to "amplify the record" was the Kirgis 

Keetoowah -- Organizat ion as a Band Opinion of 29 July 1937. The 

Department found it inconvenient to cite Acting Secretary of the 

Interior Abe Fortas' s finding. supporting the plan to allow all the 

various factions of the Keetoowah Indians to reunite and reorganize as 

a Band.(Senate Report 79 Cong., 2nd Sess .. No. 978 , 1946 , Testimony of 

Acting Secretary of Interior Abe Fortas; see also, House Report 79th 

Cong., 1st Sess., No. 444, 1946 and House Report 79 th Cong., 2nd Sess., 

No. 2705, 1946) The Department conveniently forgot that there already 

was a Federal Charter for the Keetoowahs in 1905. The BIA and Congress 

refused to refer to records of the Organization Field Agents from 1937 

to 1946, or to the l egislative history of the 1946 Act, that showed why 

and how the UKB was reorganized. The Department ignored the 24 April 

1944 determination of Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 

Tribal Relations Branch D'Arcy McNickle. which recommended that the 

Department jettison the Kirgis Opinion as fatally defective. It is worth 

the reader's while to review this document, so it is reproduced here in 

its entirety . It was this determination that reflected the Secretary's 

vi ews in recommending the passage of the 1946 Act as a measure 

clarifying the status of the UKB: 

In 1937 the Solicitor's Office ruled that the Keetoowah 

Society of Cherokee Indians was not a band for the purpose of 

organizing under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act. The opinion 

characterized the organization as "a secret society representing 

the most conservative portion of the Cherokee Indians", and having 

for its objective in the beginning , opposition to slavery, and 

subsequently opposition to allotment. The Solicitor's decision was 

based largely on information obtained from a report compiled by 

Charles Wisdom, an anthropologist attached to the Indian Office . 

Mr . Wisdom in examining into Cherokee history made these 

conclusions: (1) That while the name Keetoowah was derived from an 

ancient town. there is no historical connection between the society 

and that original political group ; ( 2) That there exists only a 

cultural and mystical relationship between the two. 

Using the foregoin.g information the Solicitor, in rejecting 

the Keetoowah Society's request for recognition as a band, held 

that a band is a political body, having the functions and powers of 

government. Likewise, it must possess a common leadership, 

concerted action and a well-defined membership; moreover, the 

membership is perpetuated primarily by birth. marriage and 

adoption. The opinion drew a distinction between the Keetoowah 

Society and the Creek towns , holding that the latter were 

independent units capable of political action and particularly the 

initiation of hostile proceedings; not only were they the 

functioning political subdivisions of the Creek Confederacy or Nation, but they were the original independent units of government 

of the Creek Nation . The Solicitor went on to say that •neither 

historically or actually" was the Keetoowah group a governing unit 

of the Cherokee Nation but rather it was a society of citizens 

within the Nation with common beliefs and aspirations. 

This argument of the Solicitor' s Office accepts as fact a 
180 

29 

fiction which, for its own reasons, the United States Government 

has insisted on treating as a fact for more than a hundred years. 

There was not aboriginally a Cherokee Nation. There were among the 

Cherokee people a number of towns and there was an elaborate 

interrelationship between these towns, as there was also 

intertribal relationships as between the Cherokees and the various 

tribes in the Tennessee valley and along the Eastern Seaboard. The 

Cherokee people were located in four general areas, referred to as the Lower Settlements, the Valley Settlements, the Middle 

Settlements and the Overbill Settlements. In a recent study of the 

Cherokees published in Bulleti n 133 of the Smithsonian Institution 

by Dr. Wi lliam Harlen Gilbert, Jr. (1943), the following passage is 

found: 

The central area of the Cherokees, comprising the Kituhwa 

(Middle) and the Valley Settlements, was the heart of the 

tribe . Later, during the Revolut i onary course [and] after the removal in 

1838 only fragments of the people remained. Quoting again from 

Gilbert: 

By far the largest and most important of the remnantal 

Cherokee groups after the removal were. those clustering around 

the juncture of The Ocana and Tuckaseegee Rivers near the old 

settlement of Kituhwa in the heart of the old Middle 

Settlements. 

Moreover, the term "Kituhwa" (Keetoowah) is used to designate one of the two dialects still spoken in the Eastern Cherokee area. The foregoing information . lends considerable color to the 

contention of Mr. Boudinot, namely, that the .term "Cherokee• never should have been taken as a tribal name; that in actuality 

"Cherokee" is derived from "Tsalagi" which may or may not have been 

used by the Cherokees themselves -- Boudinot claims that it was a place name of minor importance, not properly a tribal designation. 

Mooney's article in the American Handbook observes that the people 

also called themselves "Ani-Ki tuhwagi" meaning "People of Kituhwa•, 

which he describes as "one of their most important ancient 

settlements". Mooney also points out that the Delawares and other 

tribes called them "Kittuwa". 

At the very least , then , the term "Keetoowah" was originally 

the name of a Cherokee town, perhaps the most important of the 

ancient towns; and in its broadest implication it may be that the term is a more appropriate cGgnomen for the entire people. Taking 

it at its least implication, Keetoowah is, historically at least, on a par with the Creek towns in that it was originally an independent unit of government . Hence the Solicitor is wrong in 

saying that Keetoowah was not historically a governing unit . Next it remains to explore whether the original significance 

of Keetoowah . as being somehow associated with the heart and the center of the Cherokee people , went with the people when they were expelled from the original homeland. The Solicitor assumes that the 

contrary was true: that the term was only resurrected in the 

stressful days before the Civil War when the Cherokee people found 

themselves split on the slavery issue, and that it was again 
181 

30 

invoked when the fact of tribal dissolution approached. As I point out above, the Solicitor characterizes it as a secret society. The 

question deserves more research than it has had up to now. Emmett 

Starr in the "History of the Cherokee Indians• (quoted by Wisdom), 

presents facts which indicate that Keetoowah was a living thing and 

that it went with the people. Writing about Red Bird Smith, who was the moving spirit in the founding of the Night Hawk Branch of the 

Keetoowah organization, Starr points out that Red Bird was born near Fort Smith, Arkansas, in 1859, while his parents were enroute to Indian Territory, and that his father, Pig Red Bird (the name Smith was added by white people), was an ardent adherent of the 

ancient rituals and customs, which he taught to his son. Red Bird 

then went on to become one of the Chief expounders of the religious 

beliefs and moral codes. of the old life. When the Keetoowahs 

drafted their constitution in 1858, they did so not as a private 

and exclusive society, one feels, but as a group of trustees might 

organize in order to keep intact the property and the spiritual estate of the people facing peril . Previously, there had been no occasion for such formal organization because Cherokee laws and customs had continued to function. By 1858 many non-citizens had come into the Nation, factional ism became strong, and it was necessary to adopt measures in self-protection . The Keetoowahs even adopted a flag in the heat of the Civil War, around which they 

rallied support for the cause of the North. In February 1863 they 

abolished slavery unconditionally and forever (Mooney). In all of 

this that acts as a nation, certainly, not as a private, voluntary 

association. 

The record, incomplete as it is, seems clearly to indicate 

that the Keetoowah group , whether we call it a society, a faction, or a band, did exercise independent political action, even to the 

point of initiating hostile proceedings. It has been a formally 

organized body at least since 1858, with representative districts, 

and for many years it had a common leadership. The fact that the 

original body split into factions ought not to persuade our judgment as to the true nature of Keetoowah. At present there is in 

evidence a real desire on the part of all factions to reunite in a common organization. 

In considering the status of the Keetoowah association, one ought not to lose sight of the total history affecting the Cherokee 

Indians. As I pointed out earlier, the United States government 

insisted on treating with the Cherokee Nation when there was no such entity, and more than there ever was a Creek Nation. The 

pressures exerted by the United States Government resulted in 

producing numerous counterpressures within the Cherokee society. 

Those elements within the tribe who .were compliant and willing to concede the demands made by the Untied States in time were recognized as comprising the corpus of the tribe; those who 

resisted were treated as a malcontent minority. At a most critical 

juncture in Cherokee history, on January 31, 1899, a general 

election was held for the purpose of accepting the Dawes Commission terms. The Keetoowahs, that is to say, the Indian element off the 

Cherokee Tribe, refused to participate and as a result theii 
182 

31 

interests were defeated by 2015 votes. The membership of the group was more than sufficient to carry the election if they had mustered 

their full strength. From this indication we gather that at that 

time the Keetoowahs actually represented a majority within the 

tribe. 

The Keetoowahs themselves have never accepted the view that 

they are not "the people' and that they do not speak for the real 

interests of the ancient Cherokee world. They continue to this day 

to speak and act in all patience as if the decrees of the courts 

and the acts of the Congress had never been. But they are still 

puzzled at the failure of the United States to understand the 

simple thing they have always said, namely that Keetoowah is 

Cherokee and should never have been considered anything else. 

I propose that we bring this matter again to the attention of 

the Solicitor and try to get a revision of the 1937 opinion. 

(Position Paper on the UKB, 24 April 1944, D'Arcy MCNickle) 

In light of this memo, it is clear that the 1946 Act that followed was not a Federal acknowledgment bi 11 at all. As history shows, the 

Secretary simply abandoned the Solicitor's Opinion and promoted status 

clarification legislation. Congress even accepted without question Ross 

0. Swimmer's bizarre story that Congress recognized the UKB in order to 

accomodate Principal Chief W. W. Keeler in some way, although Keeler's 

appointment to the Executive Committee of Cherokee Nation came two years 

after the passage of the 1946 Act . Keeler was not Principal Chief of 

Cherokee Nation until several months later, when the UKB reorganization 

process was virtually complete. 

Disregarding all legislative precedent and the lOOth Congress • s repudiation of termination, Congress passed Amendment 86 to the FY 1992 

Interior Budget, agreeing to delete funding for the United Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, providing further in the 

legislative history that until such time as Congress enacts contrary 

legislation, Federal funds should not be provided to any group other 

than the Cherokee Nation within the jurisdictional area of the Cherokee 

Nation. Unless the UKB is able to move entirely out of Oklahoma, the 

result was this technically deficient language, which nonetheless 

represents the express legislative termination for the purposes of 

eiligibility of the first tribe since 1962: 

. . . until such time as legislation is enacted to the contrary, none of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act for the 

benefit of Indians residing within the jurisdictional service area of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma shall be expended by other than 

the Cherokee Nation, nor shall any funds be used to take land into 

trust within the boundaries of the original Cherokee territory in 

Oklahoma without the consent of the Cherokee Nation. 

As Acting Assistant Secretary, Ron Eden issued a determination on 24 

August 1992 that the UKB is entirely separate and autonomous from CNO, 

and is recognized as a properly organized OIWA ·and IRA tribal government 

that neither has been terminated nor barred from the Federal-Indian 

relationship. 

Meanwhile, the nebulous status of CNO continues to receive blanket 

endorsements from the BIA and summary approvals of Congress. With the 
183 

32 

approval of the Secretary, the Councils of CNO and the Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians of North Carol ina adopted a concurring resolution 

without notice to the UKB in August 1992 that they are the sole 

federally-recognized Cherokee tribes. Principal Chief Mankiller 

announced in January 1993 to all U. S. governors that the UKB is an 

unrecognized Indian group. While claiming that she has made the 

resolution of differences with the UKB a personal and political 

priority, Mankiller has campaigned for the express legislative 

termination of the UKB. CNO has signed a new self-governance program to 

take effect in October 1993, and enjoys piecemeal restoration of the 

inherent sovereignty of Cherokee Nation under the 1906 Act, based 

largely on the misconception that the CNO is organized as a democratic 

OIWA and IRA government. In a Letter, 7 July 1993, from John Ross, Chief 

Spokesman, to Rosella C. Garbow, Director, Training and Operations, BIA, 

Muscogee Area, asking for clarification on the following points: 

1. Has the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma ever proposed having 

an 0. I. W. A. election to adopt a Charter? 

2. Dces CNO claim to have a Charter? 

3. Does CNO claim to have a "blanket" concurring resolution 

from the UKB for CNO use of the UKB Charter? 

Rosella C. Garbow initialed the memo and advised that the answer to all 

three questions was, "No." There will be no level playing field between 

the CNO and the UKB, as long as Congress and the BIA authorize CNO's 

continuing attack on the UKB's sovereign interests. If the fate of the 

UKB serves as precedent, no other small recognized tribe is safe. 

This concludes the UKB's formal response to CNO's 1991 demand that 

the UKB submit to the Federal acknowledgment process to regain its 

status as a federally-recognized Tribe. The UKB cannot submit to the 

acknowledgment process, because according to Mr. Peter Taylor, formerly 

of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs staff, the UKB is de-facto 

terminated, or forbidden to participate in the Federal-Indian 

relationship, at least within the original territory described in the 

1950 UKB Charter. While refusing to serve the UKB or put lands in trust, 

or even to finance an IRA election to amend the UKB Constitution due to 

the effect of Amendment 86 in P. L. 101-116, the BIA claims that the UKB 

is non-terminated; and since the UKB still is listed as federallyacknowledged, the UKB cannot petition for acknowledgment because the 

Band is recognized. However, the Band is ineligible for ANA funds to 

document a Federal acknowledgment petition because ANA/IHS presumes the 

UKB is terminated and barred from recognition. CNO declares now that the 

UKB does not exist. and that it never did, so that the UKB never was recognized, and never was terminated. Therefore, the legislative 

termination of the UKB is the termination that never was, and represents 

the weirdest paradox at Federal-Indian law: unrecognized/recognized, 

non-terminated/terminated. A quantum physicist couldn't make sense of 

this quadruple negative. But any school child can see there's a naked 

emperor in there somewhere. 

Congress, tribes, and the American people can learn important 

lessons from the protracted travail of the UKB. The UKB is a 

congressionally recognized tribe, while CNO is an administratively 

condoned, legislatively diminished tribe unorganized within the meaning 

of OIWA and IRA. In the interests of fair play, future claims of those 
1~ 

33 

a t t acking tribal sovereignty should receive far more scrutiny . Claims 

t hat a particular tribe ' s sover eignty can still be suspect after it has 

reorganized should be the subject of thorough investigation. The reader 

may be sure that the UKB will pursue exactly such an investigation in 

this case. The Un i ted Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma 

offers the following documented briefing as the Band's only available 

recourse in view of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma's campai gn of political 

libel . Supporting documents a r e at the UKB Office, at 2450 S . Muskogee 

Ave . (P. 0 . Box 746 ), Tahlequah , OK 74464 (918 ) 456-5491 . 
185 

;l.pr i l 2 4 , 1? .:! 4 

In 192'7 the 3G~~c ':Jr'~ r):!:ice Jl~d that the K~~toowah 

3·Jci~ty of C~·-=rck.'=e I:"ld2.~i13 . ..,.;u not 3. Sand f c = t ., e purpose o :: 

orga ni=ing under the Ok! 5hcma Indian WEl:are. The op ini o n 

characterized the organization 35 ''a sec~et society representing 

the most conservative portion of the Cherokee Indians ,'' and having 

for its obj,.~-::tiv e i>1 th-e ~'=S'::1n!.ns , cppo.siti on to sl a very, and 

subsequently opposi~i on :c ~ll t~ ent. ~he Sclicitor'3 deci s i on was 

based larqely on i.n:f.;r:nat:. ::m Jbt:I i ne..:: f=·Jm a !"e port comp il. ed b~; 

Charles Wisd o m, an an o~clcq:.st attached t~ t~e I ndian Of!:.ca . 

Mr. 'N i sd um ir:. .::<ami:1.:.:1q int·.:. C~~: ok ee hi 3 tor y made: these 

co nc l u:3ions: 

(1 ) Th at wh i l e ':~~ ;)cJ.r:'le {~et JC'"' a!-: '..;as .Je:!.·,; ed ~rom an 

ancient town, ther~ is no ~isto ri l c onnec tion betwee n 

t~e s ociety a n d a~ igi~ al politica l g r oup ; 

("2) Tha t the:e >:xists only a C1Jltur3.l and mystic3.l 

relation3hip between :he ~~c. 

Using the fore goinq info:::mat lon the Solicito r, in rejectin~ 

t he Keetoowah Soci ety 's request for recognition as a b and, held 

that a band is a political body, having the fun ctions and powers o: gove rnment. Li kewise, ; • must possess a common leadership, 

concerted action and a we ll-def in ed membership ; moreover, the: 

membership is peroetuated pr i mar i l Y by birth. marr i a ae . and 

adoption. The opinion drew a distinction between the Keetoowah 

Society and the Creek t own s , holding that the latter were 

ind e pende n t un its capab l e of p olit ical a ct ion and particularly the 

initiation of host il e pr oceedings; n ot onl y we re they the 

funct ioning politi ca l su bd i v i s i ons o f the Creek confederac y or 

Nation, but they were the o r iginal independent units of government 

o f the Creek Nation . The Solicitor went on t o say that "ne i ther 

historically or actuall y" wa s t he Keetoowah group a governing unit 

of the Cherokee Nation but rather it was a societ y of citizens 

within the Nation with common beliefs and aspirations . 

This argument of the So licitor's Office a ccepts as fact a 

fiction which, for its own reasons, the United States Government 

has insisted on treating as fact for more than a hundred year:;. 

There was not aboriginally a Cherokee Nation. There were among the 

Cherokee people a number of towns and there was an elaborate 

in terrelationship between these towns, as there was als o 

intertribal relationshi ps as between . the Cherokee s and the va rious 

tribes in the Tennessee Valley and al o ng the Eastern Seaboard. The 

Cherokee peop l e were l oca ted i n f o ur general areas , referred to a s 

the Lower Settlements, t h e Valley Settlements, the Middle 

Settlements and the Ove r bill Se t tlements. In a recent study of the 
186 

C~eroke~ ~~l~::!hed in 1J !l~ti n 133 of the 3mithsonian Instituti n 

by r.>Ji.i: :.d m ;-{Q~le:1 :~·?rt, J::. ( 1943), the ll~Jwinq pas a. '= is 

f ound: ''The =~ ntral a~2a of the Cherok~es, ccmp:ising the Kituhwa 

Middl~ ~ and e Val :ey Settlements, was the heart of the tribe. '' 

Later, durin g the Revolutionar y course after the removal in 13 33 

only Er ag~e~t~ c E th~ p~cpl e r emained. Qucting again fr om Gilber t: 

"By £.5:: the la rqest and most i :nportant of th~ remnantal Cher okee 

groups after the r emoval were those clustering around the juncture 

of The Oc:::lna and TucXaseeg ee Rivers near t he old settlement of 

Klt uhwa in t~e h e a rt o! t~e old Middle Set tlements.• 

!-t c::e c•,··?:, t~e te::::n ·•:<.itur. ..~a "(Kaetoowa h) is used t o de sign a t:: 

one of the t~c dial~ctE $t~ll sp ok ~n in t~:e Eastern Cherokee area. 

Th e ::o:: ~qo i!l q in!:or:nati an lends con.:siderabl~ color to th.; 

cl tant~ an 0~ ~:. Bou~ino , namely , that the t erm "Cherokee'' neve! 

s hould ha·-11=! ~e~n taken as a tribal name; that in act ua l ity 

'' Ch eroke e '' ~s J~ ri ve d ~r m ''Tsalagi'' which may or may not have been 

.l::i~d by t!1e ::!le:r okees themsel ves--Boudinot claims that it was a 

la ce name of ~~nor i mportanc2, not proper ly a tr ibal designa tion . 

Mo oney's artic~e i n the ~~erican Handbook observes that the people 

ilso c3ll~d ~hems lve s ''Anti -Kituhwagi'' meaning ''People of 

K!':uhwa" 1 •;,~ h: :~ he desc : ibes as '' one of the i r most important: 

anci e n t sett:ements. '' ~con y als o p oi nt 3 out that the Delawares 

and other t::i be s call ed them ''Kittuwa''. 

At the ve ~y l east , then, the term "Keetoowah" was originally 

the name of a Cher o kee town, perhaps the most important of the 

ancient town s; and in its broadest i mplication i t may be that the 

term is a more appropriate cog nomen for the entir e people. Taking 

it at its least implicati o n, Kcetoowah is, historically at least, 

on a par with the Creek t owns in that it was originally a n 

i ndependen t uni t of g overnment . Hence, the Solicitor is wrong in 

s aying that Keetoowah was not historically a governing unit. 

Next it r ema ins to expl o re whether the original significanc e 

o f Keetoowah, as being somehow assoc i ated with the heart and the 

center of the Cherokee people, went with the people when they were 

expelled fro m the original homeland. The Solicitor assumes that 

the contrary was true; that the term was only resurrected in the 

stressful days before the Civil War when the Cherokee people found 

themselves split on the slavery issue, and that it was again 

invoked when the fact o f tribal dissolution approached . As I point 

o ut above , the Solicitor characterizes it as a secret society. The 

question deserves more research than it has had up to now, Emmett 

Starr in the "History of the Cherokee Indians" (quoted by Wisdom), 

presents facts which indicate that Keetoowah was a living thing and 

that it went with the people. Writing about Red Bird Smith, who 

wa s the mov ing spirit i n the founding of the Night Hawk Branch of 

the Ke e toowah o rgan i zat i on, Starr points out that Red Bi rd was born 

near Fort Smith, Arkansas, in 1850, while his parents were enroute 

to Indian Territory, and that his father, Pig Red Bird (the name 

2 
187 

.Smi :h wa;,:; 1.d ·J~ l b :l ·,.,;n : ;>:·: ~l~ , •..;as a il .1::1-:::::. : a d!1e :::: -:n::: of t~ ·~ 

anci e nt ri:~a l3 a nd :·1s tcms , wh ich ~e tJug h~ :~ :1~3 ! On. R d Bi: ~ 

th2 n went on ~ ~e~0 ~e o nd Jf the Chi £ ex pcu~~~ ::::3 of the ::::e i g i cJ U3 

l.:.-:rs :i i:d :n~J:: : c: :Jde:£ ·): t !"'.e C l.~:~. ·..;h.::n th~ K~ e cow.Jf.:: 

dr.3~~ed their cons:: : t:J+.: :·.:.n i a i_ :353, t~ y ;.:i·: 5 0 not as a pr:..va :~ 

a nd ~: us!ve oc~ ety, o~e ~ee!3 bu ~ ss 3 ;~ of t : uste -:3 igh ~ 

organ i zc in o::::d e:: .: t·J k e·~9 i :1t3c : t!1e ;J! )f>:::: : y and th e sp ~:::: i t ua: 

estate of a p~1 ple fac :..r.~; per:..l. re•.tiou s:y, ther e h a d be-=!1 n c 

occa s ion for such formal o rgan i ::::ati o n beca~.::::e: Cher ok ee laws and 

custo ms had continued t o f :Jncti o n . ay 1353 ~any non - cit ize ns had 

c o me in t c t h-: Z·lat iun, .Jc :.i onal~.z;n !.Jec.:.;me 3 tr ong , and .:t 'Nd 3 

nec:es.Eary ': .J ad.vpt me .:;.su:-=s .:. r. ::: clf - r.: r ot2c': :. ·)n . ·rh e: Kc: et oo•.<J-=.h s 

even adop~ed a fl a g in th~ he at of the Civi l ~6: , ar ound which th~y 

rall it::d su~po:~ f J : th ~ au3~ 0E t he )rth. :~ ?ebr uary 1363 t hej 

a boli3hed !av~ y ~n ndi~i~nal:y and ~·,2 : Mooney . I n a l l ~ 

t his ~1 ey ac t~d a 3 a na tion , ce::3 i n ly , n ot a3 :;. ;r ivate, volu ta:~· 

ass o cia t icn. 

The rec o:::d , incompl e te: as it i.s , se ems :::early t o i.ndica t~ 

that th e Keeto owa h gro up, wh ethe : we C3ll t t ~ 3o ciety, a fac tion, 

or a band , di d exercise ~nd~p er.de!:t pol~tic ~: acti·J n, -=:ven to th-= 

ci~t of i:~it i.3t: ng h ost: !e pr oce ec! .: n-js . i': !". a s be en a !: orm.:= ll y 

organi3e:d b od y at le as t si nc e 1 353, t~ =~p: !s e:ntati ve distr i ct3, 

and for many year s it h.~d a common leadersr::;:. The f act that th.:: 

original bod y spl it into facti ons ough t :1o t to persuade our 

judgment as t o the true nature of Kee toawah . At present the ~ is 

in evidence a re a l desir e on the part o f all f~ctions to eunite i~ 

a common o rga niza t io n. 

Membership, according to earlier information, was voluntary 

and was rest= ic ted to Cherokee Indians of one-half or more degre e. 

This was a factor in leading the Solicitor t o hold that the group 

could not be classed as a band . Mr . Boudino t now informs us (see 

his letter of April 11, 1944) that the pre vious information was 

incorrect; that as a matter of fact, membership is acquired as a 

right of birth . The Const itution o f 1858, when it is translated, 

should throw some light on this point. 

In considering the status of the Keet oowah associat i on, one 

ought not to lose sight of the total history affecting the Cherokee 

Indians. As I pointed out earlier, the United States government 

insisted on treating with the Cherokee Nation when there was no 

such entity, any more than there was ever a Creek Nation . The 

press u res exerted by the United States Government resulted in 

producing numerous counterpressures within the Cherokee society . 

Those elements within the tribe who were compliant and willing to 

conc e de the demands made by the United States in time were 

recognized as comprising the corpus of the tribe; those who 

resisted were treated a s a malcontent minority. At a most critical 

juncture in Che rokee h istory, on January 31, 1899, a general 

electi o n was held for the purpose of accepting the Dawes Commission 

terms. The Keet oo wahs, that is t o say, the Indian element of the 
188 

,:;., ... i\~~ :~ite, ::-ef us~d tv ;:a::ticipat~ and as a r~su!.t their 

~nt~:~sts wer~ def~at !~ :,015 'JOtes. The membership of ~h~ group 

.-~a3 :no=~ t~an sut~: ..:l.-=~': t'J ·.: .-;::y the election if they had muste:red 

the~: f~ll strength. ~iam th~s indication we gath~: that at that 

~:..;ne the Ke~tJowahs a.c~ually represented a majority wit~ln the 

t:ibe. 

The Ke-=toowahs th -=: mselves have never accepted the view that 

they are not "the peopl e " and that they do not speak for the ~eal 

inte=rests of the anc:e!1 t Che r .;,k ee world. They continue even to 

this Jay to speak and act in al! patience as i~ the decrees of the 

=ou =t3 3nd th~ ac~: ~~ :he ~c ngr~ss had never been. But they are 

s:~:: ~u~=!ed 3t th~ fai!u:~ ·J ~ th e United Stat~a to understand the 

3imple thing they :-t a •; e a l · .... a:;s said, namely, that Keetoowah is 

C!~~r~~e~ an~ sho•1:d ~~ V~ ! e be~n consld~red anything else . 

I pr o pc se that ~~ ~~ing ~~~3 matter agaln to the attention of 

th~ Sclic~~cr ln~ t:y o ge ~ s ~e vi sian of the 1937 opin ~on . 

D' Arcy Mc~J ick l e 
189 

AN HISTORICAL OVERVI EW OF THE UKB 

By John Ross 

THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA (UKB) 

is ~ federa lly recogn i zed Band of Cheroke~s which has all the 

sovereign r ights as all othe r fed erall y rec ogni z ed tribes in t he 

Un i ted States . This s ov e!:ignt y of t he UKB comes from the 

KEETOOWAH PEOPLE and NOT f r om the f edera l gove!nment . The pe ople 

t hemsel ves ar e s upreme and hav • the a bs ol u t e power i n the i r r i ght 

to go ver n t h emse lves! Th~~ s el f- go vernance right is ab ov e 

politics, states, na t i ons , and g ov e r nmen ts and binds the UKB 

membe rs togeth e r. THI S. IS THE POLITICAL SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT -

FROH THE PEOPLE! 

The Keetoowah lege nd s igin at~ d in anc ien t ti mes and the stories 

ha v e been or a lly pa s sed through t he gener at i ons . The legend 

revea ls the Creator named the peo pl e •KEETOOWAH,• which means 

"PRINCIPAL PEOPLE" or "PROTECTED PEOPLE . • The word "Cherokee• 

has NO mean i ng in the Cherokee Language; it is simply a version 

of a Choctaw word meaning "Inhabitants of the Cave Country.• 

When wh ite peo p l e c ame to thi s co un t r y, Ind i ans had all sovereign 

powers . As time passed, the Keetoowah/Cherokee people lost most 

o f t heir powers as treaties were made with the United States 

Government ; treaties whi c h inhibited and lessened the r i ghts of 

Ind i an peopl e . Thes e U. S . trea ti es d i d NOT create additional 

rights for Indians . 

Before the year 181 2, the governments of Indian tri bes were 

equa l to the U.S . Go vernment. However, the u.s. Government 

asserted power over all Ind i an people and governments. The U.S. 

Supreme Courts have ruled the U.S. Constitution has complete and 

absolute control over all Indian affairs, that Indian people are 

•wards " of the U. S . Government and "placed" the subject •wards" 

under the guardians h i p of the United States Government. 

In 1859, the Keetoowah Society adopted a Constitution and had a 

membersh i p limited to fullblood Keetoowah/Cherokees who opposed 

the intervention of "mi xed blood" people in int~rnal affairs. 

During the Civil War, the fullblood Keetoowah/Cherokee Indians 

sided with the North (Un i on) while the mixed bloods joined the 

Confederacy (South). During the Civil War, the Keetoowah Society 

adopt~d a flag and, in February, 1863, passed a law which 

uncond i t i onally abol ished slavery forever. In the mid-1890's, 

the U. S . Congress approved the Dawes' Act which provided for the 

allotment of lands belonging to the Five Civiliz~d Tribes. 

Then, in 1898, the curtis Act was approved by Congress to abolish 

the court systems of the F i ve Civ i lized Tribes and the original 

Cherokee Nation was forced into allotment. The white people had 

brought wi th them the Engl i sh concepts of land ownership and this 

concept was not understood nor desired by the Keetoowah/Cherokee 

people . 

86-834 95-7 
1~ 

AN KISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF TKE UKB 

Page 2 

After much harassment and force from the U.S. Government, the 

Keetoowah Society met in 1901 and reluctantly voted to comp ly 

with the Dawes' Ac t requirements. Redbird Smith, a member of the 

Keetoowah society, ad amantly opposed the actions and dec ision cf 

the Keetoowah Society and, with his followers, formed the 

religious organi:ation of the Nighthawk Keetoowahs, never to 

participate in ~he Keetoowah Society again. 

While cong:~s3 io nal legislation was pending in 1905 for the 

abol i shment of the government of the Cherokee Nation, the Council 

of the Keetoowah Societ~ appeared before the Federal Territorial 

Court, Tahlequa h, request2d and were granted an incorporation. 

The Keeto owa h Soc iety, Incorporated, recogn iz ed the urgency for 

an organization to carr y on the following for the Cherokee 

people: 

1. 

2 . 

J. 

To re~lace the defunct Cherokee Nation. 

To protect the rights of Cherokee lands and mon i es. 

To protect unsettled claims aga i nst the U.S . 

Government. 

The Keetoowah Society, Incoporated, sought congressional approval 

for a lawsuit against the federal government on eleven claims 

(said approval for only nine claims was granted in 1924). Frank 

Boudino t and associates, C.C . Calhoun, Ralph Case, and Frank 

Nebeker, were contracted to pursue the claims. These attorneys, 

at their own expense of thousands of dollars, employed expert 

accountants to aud i t the records of the federal government for 

the preceding one hundred years. The accountants discovered 

numerous large amounts due the Cherokee people. 

In 1939, some leaders of the Keetoowah Society, Incorporated, 

sought organization as THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BARD OP CHEROKEE 

INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA . In 1946, this organization was authorized 

to organize under the OKLAHOMA· INDIAN WELFARE ACT OP 1936. The 

UKB became the successor of the Keetoowah Society, Incorporated, 

of 1905 and the Keetoowah Society of 1859. This organization is 

NOT to be confused with the non-federally recognized religious 

group called the Nighthawk Keetoowahs (members of the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma- CNO) ! 

On October 3, 1950, the UKB overwhelmingly approved the UKB 

Constitution and By-Laws and the UKB Corporate Charter by 

referendum vote . Today, 1993, there are approxiaately seven 

thousand, six hundred (7,600) Keetoowah membe~s (membership 

requirements - one - fourth to four-fourths degree of Keetoowah/ 

Cherokee Indian blood) . 

In 1970, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma finally received 

approval to SELECT (not elect) a chief. Prior to this decision, 
191 

AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE UKB 

Page 3 · 

the "Chief" of CNO was SELECTED by the U.S. President and 

selection was made only to establish a liason £or oil and gas 

leases. The "Chief" of the CNO ACTUALLY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ACT 

ON BEHALF OF THE CHEROKEE PEOPLE! There was NO elected Counc i l 

of the CNO from 1906 until the adoption of a CNO Constitution in 

1976 and AFP?.OVED ONLY BY T~E COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

(administrat i vely approved), unlike the UKB which was approved by 

the U.S. Congress (legislatively approved). THE CHEROKEE NATION 

OF OKLAHOMA DOES ~HAVE A CORPORATE CHARTER! 

After the adoption of a CNC :onstitution in 1976, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs ga ve technical assistance for funding to the CNC 

organization, manipulativel y diverted f~nds, programs, and lanes 

from the UKB to CNO through the subterfuge of W.W. Keeler, Ear : Boyd Pierce, the BIA, the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation, an: the federal government. THIS MASTERED SUBTERFUGE CONTINUES TO 

DATE! 

In 1979, the BIA denied funding to the UKB and denied a UKB land 

base request in 1985. The UKB has HQI received AHY FEDERAL 

FUNDING FOR BENEFIT TO UKB MEMBERS!. A grant of 870,000 was received by the UKB in 1984 for an enrollment update. Many UKB 

members are denied federal services contracted by the CNO due to 

prejudices by the CNO toward the UKB. Most of the injustices 

done by the CNO are documented and sent to BIA offices in 

Washington, D.C. 

In 1989, the UKB sued the Secretary of the Interior to place 

lands in trust and to receive separate federal funds in the Old 

Cherokee Nation Territory. The Secretary of the Interior stated 

in Federal Court that the UKB WAS eligible to :eceive PL 193-638 

federal funding but denied the acquisition of t:ust lands except 

through the CNO consent. Immediately, the CNO instructed the 

Oklahoma Congressional Delegation to deny the court-related 

decision of PL 193-638 funding for the UKB. This was immediately 

accomplished through the efforts of Congressman Hike Synar and 

Senators David Bo:en and Don Nickles by the passage of Amendment 

186. The Oklahoma Congressional _Delegation ultimately deprived 

eastern Oklahoma of thousands of dollars and jobs through passage 

of this amendment, not to mention human rights violations under 

the u.s. Constitutions, Fifth Amendment. Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma has :epeatedly attempted to legally terminate the UKB 

through the Bu:eau of Indian Affairs. These attempts were unsuccessful so Congressman Hike Synar and Senator Don Nickles 

have been directed by the CNO to effect political termination 

of the UKB, and a defacto termination has been accomplished. 
192 

AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE UKB 

Page 4 

Regretfully, the top positions of the BIA area office are held by 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma members. Thus, a conflict of 

interest exists which results in flagrant ~lscrimination against 

Keetoowah/Cherokee people of higher degrees of Indian blood in 

violation of federal law. 

In comparison, the Creek Nation Chief, Bill Fife, has ~embraced" 

the Three Creek Tribal Towns (organize~ separately under the OIWA as ls the UKBl and provi~ed support and technical assistance for 

them to receive federal funding and programs. The Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma IS NOT ORGANIZEp YNDER THE OKLAUQHA INDIAN 

WELFABE ACT! Perhaps this fact intimidates CNO and results in 

discrimination of the UKB members. 

If a legal analysis of the CNO were made, serious problems 

regarding CNO federal recognition would surface: 

1. The Curtis Act of June 28, 1898 (30 Stat. 495-504) 

abolished CNO tribal government and the court system. 

2. The Cherokee Allotment Agreement of July 1, 1902 _(32 

Stat. L, 716) resulted in a relinquishment by CNO to all 

CNO members' individually restricted lands. Thus, the 

federal government has jurisdictional control of the 

individually restricted lands. 

3. The Five Civilized Tribes Act of April 1, 1906, (34 

Stat. 137) abolished tribal taxation authority of the 

Five Civilized Tribes. Thus, the U.S. President was authorized to appoint chiefs. 

4. The enrollment rolls of the Cherokee Nation were closed June 21, 1906. CNO has a ONLY A var.IR 

REGISTRATION LIST (OF WHICH APPROVAL IS NOT REOUIREP 

BY CNO COUNCIL! THUS, NO "TRUE" CNO HEKBERSHIP ROLL 

EXISTS. 

THESE CONGBESSIONAL ACTS HAYJ HEyBB BBBI RBSCIIQIDI 

This discrimination and 

collusion between the BIA 

created the necessary move search presently is in the 

mal-treatment of UKB members and 

and CNO is no trivial matter and 

of the uKB away from Oklahoma. 

State of Arkansas. 

the 

has 

The 

The proposed move of the UKB will resolve the problems which the 

BIA, CNO, the Oklahoma Congressional Deleqation, and the State of 

Oklahoma have reqardlnq UKB sovereiqnty. Contrary to the opinion 

of the CNO, the UKB wants to take nothing away from the Cherokee 
193 

AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE UKB 

Page 5 

Nation. All the UKB demands is to be able to govern 

its members a s a fully recognized tribe organized 

provisions of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act. 

and serve 

under the 

The plan to mo ve to Arkansas i s a result of a decision policy of 

the Bureau o f Ind ian Affairs that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

has jurisdiction over all lands in the fou rt een count i es of the 

Old Cherokee Nat:on. The BIA made th is policy wt-thout any 

investigation or research to validate CNO authority. 

If such a BIA i nvesti gation were made, it would reveal that CNO 

is NOT the Old Ch~rokee Nation and the CNO IS NOT organized under 

the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act! Further, between 1946 and 1950, 

a determination was made by then-Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 

William Zimmerman , that the UKB WAS eligible to acquire U.S. 

trust lands in the Old Cherokee Nation reservation area. These 

questions were asked at that time: 

1. "What if the Cherokee Nation reorganized?" 

2. "How would the two Ch erokee entities exist?" 

3. "Would there be problems of co-existence between the two 

entities and two chiefs within the Old Cherokee Nat i on?" 

It was determined that they could co-exist and th·ere should be no 

problem with their coexistence. Commissioner Zimmerman reasoned 

that the c ircumstances existing between the CNO and UXB were 

identical to those between the Creek Nation and the Three Creek 

Tribal Towns. Zimmerman believed NO problems would arise from 

the separate recogn i tion of the UKB. 

Therefore, an off i cial i nvestigation is hereby requested 

regarding the termination of UKB federal funding, the prejudice 

of the Muskogee Area BIA Office (most BIA upper management people 

have conflicts of interest concerning the UKB and CNO), and the 

favoritism and collusion efforts existing among the Oklahoma 

Congressional Delegation. 

To reiterate, the UKB is presently requesting lands in Arkansas 

(in areas to be determined by the UKB Council) be placed in U.S. 

trust status for the UKB in order to provide and improve social, 

economic, and living conditions of UKB members. ~hese 

provisions are established and mandated by law under the Oklahoma 

Indian Welfare Act, the UKB Constitution and By-Laws and UKB 

Corporate Charter! 

~~ief Spokesman 
194 

AMERICAN TAX ~ AT WORK! 

?ossi~l~ fraud and malfeasance ~y the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

(CNOl with the knowledge of the Muskogee Area Office of .Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (S IAl to secu~: a reported 85 MILLION DOLLARS IN 

li1i (and ot~er federal ~:og:am funds) by the use of fraudlent 

"head counts.'' 

Acc:o::~:~g to ;c;nown anC dcd.~c~-: information r'!9orted by CNO and 

t~e~ Cocurnentat:on, t~e 9.! . and other agencies of the federal 

gove:::unent continue to f·..lnC numero us programs using possibly 

fraudu~~nt fea;sibility repor":s {see "F.Y.I .," page 11, UKB 

NEilS December, 1993). The:;.: .. ~. is aware of the situation and 

is Eiagrantly condoning ane 5:lowing thei: agency as well as 

other federal agencies to continue this waste of taxpayer 

Coll<itS . 

The UKB, through a h istor i c3: ~arrativ e (416 pages) compiled by 

Allegan Slagle 1 UKB. Counc i l:nan and attorney, has reported these 

di3c:epancies and /or deficiencies to the U.S. Secretary of the 

Interior, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and other 

pertine~t agencies in Washington, D.C . 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS GUIDELINES 

RECOGNIZE ONLY THOSE PERSONS 1/4 TO 4/4 DEGREE OF INDIAN BLOOD AS 

"INDIANS!" Therefore, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma contracted for 

SELF-GOVERNANCE funds which use "HEAD COUNT" PROCEDURES FOR 

FUNDING INSTEAD OF BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENTS and began a 

vigoro us campaign to REGISTER (NOT ENROLL) KRKBERSI 

Of the 155,000+ CNO REGISTERED MEMBERS, approximately fifty 

percent plus (50\+) live OUTSIDE THE ORIGINAL 14-COUNTY AREA OF 

OLD CHEROKEE NATION! 

NO WONDER THE CNO IS ATTEMPTING TO SupPRESS UKB EFFORTS TO EXPAND 

AHD RECEIVE SEPABATE FUNDS! 

HQk;_ 

The "For Your Information• article includes 3.700+ exclusive UXB 

members from 1/4 to 4/4 blood degrees! Additionally, 

approximately 9,0.00 members of the Delaware Tribe are included in 

the CNO total. 

Even though CNO registered members living outside the Old 

Cherokee Nation who are not eligible to receive services, UKB 

exclusive members who never registered with CHO or have 

relinquished CNO reqisteration, and Delaware and Absentee Shawnee 

aembers are included in CHO "bead count,• aillions of tax dollars 

continue to flow into Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. 
195 

Acco~ding to CliO documentation, the below listed breakdown o: 

registration membe::shil? of C!·IO as of December 31, 1992, with 

blood quantum percentages is su=mitted : 

NUMBER OF MEMBERS ?E?.CZNTAGE/SLOOD QUANTUM 

21 l/2043 or .049/~,000 o! ., 

333 u:o:; or .033/1,000 oi:!; 

2,451 1/51: o:: .195/1,000 oi :-\ 

7,454 1/250 ·'J:C .39/100 Ot .... . , 13,333 1; ::s c:: . 78/lGO of 1 o.., 

13,669 1/64 or 1.56/1 00'1. 

21,994 1/32 or 3.125/100% 

21,836 1/16 or 6 . 25/100% 

19' 929 l/3 or 12.5/100"; 

17,147• l/4 or 25/100\ 

8,495• l/2 or 50/100% 

4,162* 3/4 or 75/100'1. 

4,181• 4/4 or 100% 

Additionally, it has been reported by 

Hospital employees that two newborns 

.024/1,000 of 1% were born during 1993. 

N.W. Hastings Indian 

possessing 1/4096 o:: 

Surely with all existing regulations and requirements of the 

federal government of any/all federal programs, there ·must be a means by which to follow a •money trail" to the ultimate intended 

monetary uses of the federal funds. The UKB submits that the 

methods of accounting for program dollars are possibly co-mingled 

in a CNO tribal dollar-pool and any attempt to follow said money 

trail would be futile. Why is this blatant misuse of taxpayer 

funds existing? Surely the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation is 

aware of the dilemna. Perhaps this waste should be addressed by 

Congressman Synar and Senators Boren and Nickles in their 

undaunting support of CNO. 

Another extremely important issue I want to address is the 

proposed Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma proposed RELIHQUISHMEMT OF 

IHTBREST IN THE 96-MILE PORTIOH OF THE ARXAHSAS RIVERBED BETWEEN 

THE AIUt.UISAS STA'l'Z BORDER AIID THE 'l'HRD-PORJ:S AREA !lEAR MUSKOGEE 

IH BXCHAIIGB FOR OTHER FEDERAL LAHDS NOW UNDER FEDERAL COHTROL I 

THE CHEROKEE HATION OF OltLAHOKA IS .ALLOWIHG THE EROSIOI!I OF 

CHEROKEE SOVEREIGNTY! The Chickasaw Times. October/November, 

1993, article provided documentation for this erosion is included 

in this paper. This plan, together with the takeover of the 

I . H.S. facilities in Claremore and Tah.lequah and plans to include 

services to indigent non-Indians should bring all Indian people 

to their. senses. 

2. 
196 

Ac~ :o;_ .., t o :~e Co roora t e l.:~ter of THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND 

OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA (UKBJ, we are •to protect any 

interest which the United Keetoowah Band or its members .ay have 

treaties made with the Cherokee Nation.• No one with the 

organization purporting to represent the Cherokee interests has 

contacted the Band concerning the Arkansas Riverbed! But, it 

appears THE "CHEROKEE NAT!ON" MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSULTED 

E:I'!'!!ER. 

The founders of our· Band limited the powers of its government by 

stating "NO LAND BELONGING TO T!!E BAND OR INTEREST IN LAND SHALL 

EVER BE SOLD OR MORTGAGED." ?ossibly Mike Synar's Cherokee 

organization follows the philosophy of the Cherokee Nation of 

existing solely to dispose of its reaaining . assets and land. 
197 

t.":'iiTED KEETOOWAH BA.'iD OF CHE...''WKEE I:'>DL\.'iS Di OKLlliO:\L~ 

?.0 . 30X 746 TAl-:U~t:.lli. OKL-lliC.l!, 7.;.;€S·•J~-l6 

~Ct-~ ROSS 

CHIEF 

Jl~l HE.'1SC:-< 

ASSIST.-\..'IT CE!ZF 

TEU:P!:C:-.=:: t9loi 4Eo·.5491 F.'-'< ;9::; .;O:'l·<€ill 

~~ c=== :~ : :~= = 

~n!t ~ st~: ~3 ~~ =~ ?:~ ~~! ~ 

Wasr..:.:l ;: ~., J . . ; . : :: :": ;; 

?leas~ =~~~ :~1 ~ -==:~= -- ac = c::~::~ 

conso !. :C..l~=~ .: ~;.;.! :~ ·.;!~ =~C )·.::-= ~ : .!.:::: 

·=> f I nd:.an .-\.: :a :. : 2 ~=::~ ~::= ::.~:-: ~ :':s ! :: : 

-~ [l~llE !..Ot: ','¥~-: -:-::: . -=:. 

sc.ca.:::: .. _~y 

CLARA ?!<CC7CR 

Cppos i ticn ~=om U.S . Ser:at.J;:E 3v:':!;. a.nC :-~ :. {:. ~~ .and Congre :=3 ::t~:-. 

Synar a:~ exp:~s3ae ~ai!y i~ ~h .:.3 ~tata. H~ ~ever, this nega~.:.·,~ 

intercourse o: the d!:3t::1guished an~ i :::;.uer.t!.a! Ok!.-ai~c :na 

Conqressional De legati on i s certa inly ~ a n innovation w:~ ~ 

regard to THE UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS (UKB) . 

The UKB has expe~ienc~c op9=ession from th ~; powerful delega tic ~ 

for years. 

Enclosed herewith are copies of two area newspaper articles whic~ 

are self-explanatory. Merritt Youngdeer, Ar~• Director, Muskogee 

BIA, complains that the Muskogee Office shoald remain due to the 

fact approximately 76\ of the Indian populati on in Oklahoma lives 

in Eastern Oklahoma. Also, of the ~ quoted by Merr i tt 

Youngdeer, the majority are members of DEC2NDA9CY LISTS. NOT 

IHDIAH TRIBAL HEKBEBSHIP ROLLS . Perhaps your office should lnve~tiqate fiyc billi on dollaxs being distributed to Indian 

tribes in 1991. the majority of said funds "earparke4" for tri bes 

with DICEHDAHCX LISTS AS OPPOSED TO TRIBAL RQLLS in your efforts 

to eliminate the misuse of taxpayers dollars and reduce the 

deficit of the federal government . 

----------- COUNCn.. MEMBERS 

AlJ.OGANSLAGLE 

CANADIAN DISTRICT 

~SUE HOU.\.'ID COOWEESCOOV.'EE DISTRICT 

ADALENE S;I.UTH 

DELAWARE DISTRICT 

.m!PROcroR 

FLDiT DISTRlCT 

RICHARD )f&'ruS 

GO~SNAXE DISTRICT 

St:SA.'I ADAIR 

II.U:'OIS DISTRlCT 

'RESPECT FOR OUR ELDERS' 

ROBERTA SMOKE 

SALINE DISTRICT 

CH.\IUJE BIRD 

SEQUOY.Ui DISTRICT 

l\IOSEKI!LER 

TAHLEQt:.Ui DISTRICT 
HIS 

:z ~-;-z :: :J_;f 3L.' 1

: [' .'-:..:' ::~ r~:.\~ TS " ( .. m~ cas~5, t!le .Ee:O::e=al 

scver~rne~= =~~u~ ~s ! .•: to 4/ 4 deg=~e at !~dian loc~ ~--

..:::.:: ~:: ::: ··=-· .:-. :: ::-=.t. ..: ::-. ..i .:...:. L2S~ 'l'Hrl...~ 1/ 4 DEG~!!:2 

:~ 0!.\t'l 3 t. ...: CC ?;i.: ~-:; :: -= ': ~: .::-. : .:. :>:.!· ;..:::=:: .-.: Jt' ; ::, ~ OUTS I!)E :-: ~ 

~~: .:.:: ~~~ -=~= ·3 3: J: .:. 3 ·~~ ~--~, :. 0: ~, but only 

a~pr~:<.~ Jtc.tz::r ()ne ~ r."! ~t:~ o t: t~e 76~ ar~ unde= total jurisc!lct ion 

o£ t~e BIA. ~~e Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (155,000+ membe~s J, 

t:te C:-eek Nation ( 37,130 members ) , and the C~ic tasaw Nation 

(3 9,51 5 members) ar e cont=acted self- governance tribes directlv 

with the federal government - not the Muskoaee Area BIA Office! 

~he 2~~ ~at~on i 3 the on!y properly or?ani =ed tribe (und e: t~ e 

Ok :ar. omc !nCian Wel:a !:~ :...c': / Znd:a n Reorgan i zat!.cn Act) to compact 

for 3e:f-~cve:nance ~z in East ern Okl ahoma. The total number 

of Ind i ans NOT UNDER JURISDICTION OF THE MUSKOGEE BIA AREA OFFICE 

IS 231.695 TO DATE! Tribes ente•ed into self-qovernance 

contracts wit~ t~e fed~:a~ government in orde~ to be fREE OF THE 

DIRECT CONTROL OF THE BIA . IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT IT REMAINS A 

PRIORITY THAT THE SELF- GOVERNANCE TRIBES RETAIN TIES TO A BIA 

OFFICE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY CHIEF KANKILLER AND 

THE OKLAHOMA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ABE TAKING SUCH A STRONG 

POSITION IN s ypPORT OF THE AREA DIRECTOR. MERRITT YOUNGDEER . 

In one enc los ed article, Wilma Hankiller, Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma c~:e!, omplai~ C she was not contacted regarding the 

possible co nsolidat ion of BrA offices. Hr . Gore, ~of the 

tribal leade rs with whom I am acquain ted w~re notified of this 

acti on . You should know the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

e liminated jur isdictional responsibilities of the Muskogee Area 

B!A Office four years aqo when it became one of the first tribes 

in the nation (and the first Oklahoma tribe) to sign a selfgovernance compact with the federal government. 

The S~ate ~ Ok!a homa benefits substantially from the fe de ra l 

a3s i stance r~ceived by f ederal ly r ecogn ized Indian tribes with i n 

it3 borde:s. The effec t on th e economy of Oklahoma (a5 well as 

other states, including Alas k a, Ar izona , New Mexico, etc . ) is 

synonymous with the eff ec t of state-locat ed military base s . 
:: :·. : ~ =..:-::: - ::-: 

199 

- ...: --- . ---.- -··-

7~=~~ ~~~~- -, ~: 3:~ ~=~~~~~ ~~~=~~:~ a=~ a~pl yed t~ ~ 

~~ ~: ;e2 ~- ~ ~~:~ ~ ~~ =~ :-:~ ;= :.: : __ :_-:~ == ~ :~;p s~ : ~-

--;; ..... - '·- ·- ~ ·-- __ _ ..; ·- - ::: -= __ -_.:: - - : .::...:: ___ . .. ~:; :z ~::: :::::--:. : :: :.::-. .:. :r:.:;, .:~_::: ; :~ 

: ::: ::..; .3 ..: =-.:-;: .. :: =--~- : = -- --- --- ---------- ·...;:. :."". 

'r=:::;..;.; c~ : ·::-:;;a.c::. ..:'~-:-:::~ ; ~0 :-::::. 3-::: :.:-.; ::-: :::e :=.c:. ::::::::-.=: 

--::. i;- ::.-: ~..:. 2:.:.. :: ..=:..::: · .... : : -.... =- ;.: :: ::.:~-- E.:: ::: :~ ~ :::-:n~:..:;. 

:-. ·.:.n .:2:asc.r:c~. >1=- •3..:.::.:, :..: .=:;:.: :.: :::: ~_.:. . .:. :::::..: :- - = z: . .:. .: .:::-:.::s :.: 3C~~eved 3S ~e:: a3 c::~: ~=~~~-;=. . ~; ::: - -;-2 3, ;l~a.3~ ~2 :-: 

a~:e t~e ~cn:..e3 aa ;e~ a: ~ :!:.~'12s: ~ ___ :.~;: :· ::.~g t~e liv~s Q~ 

'':a~! '' !n~~a.~ 3 t~:= ~~ ~~ A~~::..ca. . 

ide 3 and =: ..: a~m ~ist=at o~ are cert&~~:y a;~=ec~ata~ a~c la ~g ove:du~. Ea3= 

~~s es in y o ur e ndeavors. 

cc: 

Br~ce Babbitt, Secretary of t~c Interior 

Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary of ·the In~ercor 

U.S. Congressman Tim Hutchinson 

Loretta Avent, Special rls3:stant to the ?r=s C~nt f or 

Intergovernmental Affairs 

U.S . Senator Dale Bumoers 

U.S. Senator David Pryor 

U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye 
200 

U:'iiT:ED K:EETOOWAH BA..'iD OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 7~6 TAHLEQt:AH. OKLAHOMA 74465·0746 

TELEPHONE: 19 181 ~56·5491 (918) 456·9462 

.;QH:'-1 ROSS 

c::rc::F 

J!~! HEC'IS0:'-1 

ASSIST.-'..'iT CHIEF 

\!ay 4, 1992 

:c THE OKLAHOC!A CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIC': 

JI~~IE LOt: WHITEKILLER 

SECRETARY 

NOR.'-tA JEAZ'I FOURKILLER 

TREASt:RER 

:.:e :-e3lize be Ok lahoma Cv ~ressionat de:e~a io n has attemnted to "terminate" us in 

:- :lc::.c e t!1rougit t~le lang'Jage !.n t:le ~2-St 3IA appropr~atioO bi ll. We know that vou have 

.::: er:.~ined our right t o self-gove:-:une!l.: ·Jecause you think :;ou can benefit politically 

: ::rougil alliance -lit!l the c:1erokee ~Jat~on of Oklahoma. 

?er ~aps :10u !la\·e yet to reali;;:e t!1ac ::cur action did a disser·:ice to tile State of 

Ck ~ahom . 

':"o•J. us c be the onl:.' Congressional de l.egac::.o n in the U. S. to promote legislation to 

deny fede ral funding to a part of ::our own state. We estimate that you cost the Oklailoma 

ec onomv from t• ... a to three million dollars fa r this vear alone in direct federal assis-

':~ ce bec:1us e 0f your ill-conceived effort to have ~ne instead of two tribes eli gi !>le 

r :unding. ~ie t hink Oklahomans shou ld :<now this. 

Further. we have been contacted by peopl e not only in .\rkansas, but also Missouri about 

moving to their states since the Oklahoma Congressional delegation has made it clear 

t!1at it does not res pect our rigitts. \-ie '"onde r , what has t he State of Okla lloma ever 

do ne fo r the fullblood Cherokees ? I n our case, we know that our welfare is certainly 

not being looked after by the Oklahoma delegation. 

Gone are the days when Ok lahoma had a congressional delegation with people such as 

Senator D1omas and Representative Rogers who visited fullblood co11111111nities and urged 

passage of a bill, the OnlA, designed to allow fullbloods to reorganize themselves to 

better their lives. It took Senator TI10mas nearly ten years to specifically provide 

for the organization of the Keetoo1o'ahs. Since then, Oklahoma has allowed the BIA to 

subvert the Keetoowah' s recognition. Now, with fullblood coaunities still in poverty 

since most of the millions of dollars of federal money goes to the White Cherokees, 

your efforts to render us totally po,.erless may, instead, have opened us to "a land 

of opportunity". 

- ----------COtmCIL MEMBERS-----------

JACOB COBB 

CANADIAN DISTRICT 

E:II:IIA SUE HOLLAND 

COOWEESCOOWEE DISTRICT 

ADALE="E SMITH 

DEL\WARE DISTRICT 

JIM PROCTOR 

FLINT DISTRICT 

RICHARD MANUS 

COINCSNAKE DISTRICT 

SUSAN ADAIR 

ILUSOIS DISTRICT 

··RESPECT FOR C'!JR El.DERS" 

JACKSON MCCWN 

SAUNE DISTRICT 

MARY SilCLET 

SEQUOYAH DISTRICT 

MOSE KILLER 

TAHLEQUAH DISTRICT 
Oklahoma Cong!"essional Delegation 

May 4, 1992 

Page 2 

201 

Since you have not treated our fullblood people \lith an y respect here in Oklahoma, 

W'e assume we can seek a better life for ourselves else•,.;here 'Jit:1 your blessing .. If 

not with your blessing, then .,..e will seek allies wherever they :nay be in order to 

free us from being Oklahoma's slaves - usi:-tg us for your economy but not recognizing 

our rights as people. 

Sincerely, 
, ... : ::: :::.-::-! .\AikE SY~,J..~ 

L:wJS B. K< tchum 

202 

(on!Jnss of tbt ~nttdl i>tat.e~ 

~oust cf ~epnsentatitles 

WJ5~tngton. liai!C .205 t :1-31302 

Jant:.l!y 7, 1994 

108 S. Seneca Avenue 

BanJesville, Oklahoma 74003-2834 

D~::1r Lewis: 

J3l' hnv••Ho~u "'fK f ~:tu;•• 

w.,,. .. ,G,o~< p.::.:s,s.uo: zr~ :::: -no, 

2 8 !2 ;I Dl~A • .S U•l~•~C 

116SOVTW I\II&, .. $ r UtT 

MllUOCir. ;)~ 1UC I 

!tlliU0-1533 

I would like to draw your ar.enticn to an event doar I belie>e 'hill be of intJ:r::st :o 

you. 

At my request, on January 20, 1994, Rep. Bill Richardson, Chainnan of tl1e Nan;nl Resources Subcommine: on Native American Affairs, will hold a field hearing 

in Tahlequah. l would like to encoura~e you to attend this event. The committee will 

hear testimony on a range of eoonomic issues critical to Native Americans. The issues 

will be: health care reform, rrust fund management, self-governance, economic 

development, and gaminK. The hearing will be held at the Cherokee Nation Tribal 

Complex Gocated on Highway 62 just west of Tahlequah) in the Tribal Council 

Chambers from !0:30am to !2:30pm. 

I op~ that you will be able to attend this important event. ~lease contact Tanya 

Dav is or Tracy W~is ler of my Washington, DC staff if you have any questions. 

With best wishes, 

Sincerely, 

MS/td 
203 

Cfierof(ee 'J{(Ition Principa{ Cfii~( 'Wifnul P. 9-{mr{J((er 

invite.~ 

'Trioa{Chiefs antf Cfrairmen 

to attend a {uncfuxm 1t1ith 

'ZIS.1(epresentative 'Bi{[ ~Rjcfianfson 

Chair, Su6.Committee on :?{gtiw .. :1nu!rimn ;.tft;tirs 

ojtfie ·· 

::House Committee on :Vrtumf W_r.>ol1rct'-' 

12:30 p.m '11imsJay, jan11nry 20, 1994 

'Ta f{Jng Letl1/e..< _1o6 ((>rps 

'l1J.'W '}(refer Cherof;ge 'J,{gtion 'Tri6a{ Conq•f.·.r. 

'lfiis ittjor11111f funcheon wif[ provitfe you with tlie opportmrity to 

meet persona{~{ with Congressman '.fUclianfwn. 

Congressman1(icfr.anfson 11Jiff 6e i11 'lilfrfequnfi at tlic request of 

•l..l"! r~("'--'" .. -·-·· f1,(~~L- r .... -- '- ;-;1~-j~j'":J) ~:~~~~ r.l~-: ~1: .• ~~ ~;:t :~:;- ·1 -~ ~l -1.:.1 

CHEROKEE N:\ TION .. o.aoc ... •t~o.o.~&':''""'OG•·~ ·m 

FAX(918)4~ 

-· 1-lq.g(.j 

10' >f)t_,)lu•-~Yt~J5.S._ ___ _ 

"" L IJ!l n bJo.JJcwd 

Pub!i'c Q£.tO,r:-, 

TO 'd TO'%~t' 0< 

\ VI!rnaP Mitll..,liiN 

Pnnt:lfJal Ch1e1 

JOhn A Kccchcr 

Ot:pUty Chief 

I'I.IIINr of pipS inch-it~~~ ~ PIIF I 

I 
** FINAL EDITION 89th Year- No. 131 • Tulsa, Oklahoma, Sunday, January 23, 1994 • Entire Contents© 1994 World Publish

1 ~.r.=:;;.:. Cherokee 

1 

Popu

I ..... . [ G wth ·R t The population boom has been 

r0 a e fuele<l by newborns. but tribal fig- • Foco'' Nam

ures sbow t.h.at record numbers of Opinton 3 

Near 400 0/.0 people annually are becoming 

7c; new cJllzens of Lhe Cherokee Na~ 

lion. . . , 257 927,000 

By Rob Martindale To show the tribe's rapid et· ·1993. 

World Sentor Writer . . pansion in relati<;m lf» other seg- • Tbe tot

======,-, ..----- · ments of the J?OpulaU<lll, .bere are .. .-in Oklahom

Tb ·ula. · wth aomeeompa,_,.: •. ,, •. , •: :· ~·'b)f"U j>erC:

e pop t1on R1;ll rate · • The Cherokee Natioil popu-. •25Z;Ull. be

of the Cherokee Nat1on has far . lation crowth rate from 1983. to .· uvo eeiiSWI

outstripped that of other In- 1993.~as i'!St_short of~ · P!r:...:....TbLfilu

<\ian .tribes, the state of Okla· eent. arowtng by lll, oo~ ~o .. the U.S.. Ce

-·· I ...... ·-··-·-••• I I b'nma and tbe :United States 152,000. . ~ .. j ..... • ••·. Oklaboma D

r .. · . . ... ,·•Tbestate·of Oklaboma popU.: meree. ~= 

o'er the .past dec,ade. · • · ·Jation ·dropped from--3.290,000 1~ ·. ·• Whlle•do

>'One "of ·tbe ·moSt ambitious ""1983 ~ when· a: recon~· bll!h llr":Jiiii>UitUclii~

ttlbes lD Ameriea In terrns"of Hlf- set ~ to a :projeete<l 3,%31,0W.ID:O:!Wbtre •: ~ 

covemance; the tribe m -1983 bad 1993. ; .:.• ,~-- ,.~ ~ !::<,.::h ': ; · t':!\trtbes;:

41.UO members. Today, it has ,; • Tbe United States popalatioa ·. ,ZII!Diblp.

1s2:ooo . .;... almost ·a fourfold in- ·

1 rew .by .1.0: percent: from . ilii!:at.lt;.:t:&

·SOURCE.U.S. C1nsus tulNWottdiOCat"TNn crease. ,. ,.,, .... : •·•• · • · '"233.782,000 to a·.·pi'ojeCted :.mobtb:~:.:

. • ... ·-· . .. . . ~ , .. . . ..;... ;,.;.· :;; • . . •• ·· ••- ~ ~ •• , I •1 j :• :,::·,:.:,;; :._~:":..:.:..'- __ ,.,.,
205 

.... ~ .... 

~~? Continued from News I tribe. You had Delaware Tribe blood '~db;;~ ~"'of .. over 50 services to tribal mem· Individuals. You had Shawnee the 1-·--tlult ,.,u·flad·on· bers, including free hospital Tribe individuals." the final ron. wllleb.la jlllt four 

ca~ti.er services Include higher .. ~~~u::':.f !h~~e c~1!: ~: .,....:,~.::,a~~~ . 

education opportunities, pro· htrl1.sbetorhlc1adlwle1•eaill.srepeolatplons 1

e.''hlp the tbeNaU~011 ri~~drqlatr . aa 1. 8-ll'~;_tbei'Okee .....,,_ grams for lftfants. housing aiSis· th ~a. aa_.WI ---. 

lance, burial assistance, food do- or~~:;f~:r~k~ .. ~it~r!nllf~:.!~~ :0:.' ~~~ ·!~:~~ :::' ~:~ :0~ .:eoa::,~:bfe ~ !::~ than Asians or Europeans becom-· . Wltb tbe......,.. from a iDaJiual memben. in1 American clUzens, be said. operaUon ·to ·a cocnputerizecl .,... : Since lUI, the Cherokee Na· Cherokees, be said, bave bad lem. aDDilcatioM DOW caa be pro- lion population increases have contact with non-Indians dattnc celled: wltbiD Jour weeks, be averaged around 12.000 a year back several centuries. aa1cL · · ~ ... -~ i ·· ·: :. ~_., .. _, , · ::!!'t.!:-:nd U percent tbroup lr!~~~ r ~e:::l.~~~~lo;::' t'l: American lndlaD.trtbal ~ Five percent of the people ap- Cherokee Nation Is from full ~-.:-In ":::"~a":' ~ :' . plying for membenhlp are found blood down to one In 2,041 or· . tbe Oleroketl NaUon was lobe Ineligible: l/2,041th. revltallled 111 tbe lt701, ·a ··- To become a tribal member, a The blood degree minimum constitution allciwed ·ror· tribal pe..-. must bave an ancestor on ml1htappear low, but Ia uplaln- 111e11111en to ·u .. 1..ade and oat- what are commonly known u the ab8

1ee, F11101emedin1 satiJd.:..._ "-, ".-- aide o1 Oklalloma; 'and ._._.. DllwesCommilslonrolls.Tbeen· :"", ~.u· b-1 f"- wenreqaiNdto.baweatleaat._ rollment took place from 1811 to :~:;l't~t~rc~;fot.~. :..u ::: c~eaceac~Qt 011 tJie artlllnal.'Tolla. · 

~~th~r::.:;,..~fore Oklahoma born In lbe late 1700S. • ~~~j,= ... At that time, aa Individual ••• "Hia desceadants. If they mu- ~':!::'""-

required to live within the Chero- · ried non·lndlana, woald fall Into' :;tb; .::Sw.2!. . 

:..-:~~!~ ~~·:!~~.'::"6k~vh·~~~ ==~::~ ~e~1 srz" oro::::.: Fl=~:..;.-;, u;·~ ;.":v!f:: t'::.:r' .:!:.•ppear on fo":a V.!;..l:'l '::.r" oaa _. 11 ....-&an ll8lad aa ..-...; Tbe Cherokee Notion etu...... 'Other tribes ln OJtiahoma bliw 1M! ilalcL · · · · •·• ' ~ .. ;. · 

ship Commlalon was responsible olmllar or no blood quantum ,.. · At tbe larD ol tbe cantari ,._ for the rolla. qulrements u ~ u an a~· tbe flul roll- JII'CICili!MI!, there 

u.!>:r!::f ~=:.!:' "u~~J"[~ :e ~:::!~-.:: .:.r.~ ~~~~·h ••t ~~=::~·.~~!~ on 

l/25ftiL the rolll ran t...::lull·bloocl to ond Spoltesmen Seminole for natioM both tbe said Creek tbe1· : Wltb lncladla& tbe tribe; ·ltiaae·DOt lhe·U.S. ~ ce.. o1 

Allh801111 1 tn htheretlme wfoasr aChbel~!!'. bad no aet blood d..,... reaatre- 1-~ a..,_ 14UOO.Jndl. cree t the ,__ ment. The member wltb lbe least ¥iduale clalmlnl to be Clteroloee; Flemlnssald, "youolsohavepe<i- blood deareeln the Okmull"· · ID addltiGn·to•tbe ·OidalooJna:. pie on the final rolla who were based Creek nation Is one over baaed Cberolt ... ; .tbe , Baatetn non-lndlon. 1,021, a tribe III>Okeaman said. · Band ol CllerciUM beatlqurtand "You had Afrlcon·Amerlcons, Flemin1 .. 1c1 · a penon wltb a· In North· Caro1toa eoanta about ·Caucasiana wbo morrled Into tbe one over 2,041 decree of Cherokee 1~,000 IDeiJiben, J.l'lem4nl 11114 
206 

COMMENTS 

ON THE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OKLAHOMA TRIBAL AFFAIRS 

TO THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

HELD 

JANUARY 20, 1994 

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA 

SUBMITTED 

BY 

EDDIE JACOBS, CHAIRMAN 

FEBRUARY 9, 1994 
207 

COMMENTS ON THE OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OKLAHOMA 

TRIBAL CONCERNS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS BY THE OKLAHOMA IND 

IAN MINERAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION 

These comments vere prepared by members of the Oklahoma Indian 

Mi neral Owners Associ ation in response to the January 20, 1994, 

oversight Rearing on Tribal Concerns held by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah, Oklahoaa. For the past decade, the 

association have submitted numerous times their comments, recommendation and rationale concerning matters relative to their 

vested interest . Despite agendas centered on tribal issues, tbe 

mineral owners managed to "slip in the back door" (sic) aaoy times just to try to del i ver a positi on paper to an official of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs or tribal offical, on the issue. As the 

Chairman of the association, I approached the tvo Oklahoma Area Directors present at a united triba1 Indian organization meeting, in 

regard to a general question and vas told .1 shouldn • t be talking 

to them, that my voice vas in the rooa where the tribal officials 

vere. Despite the exclusion, ve persist in our continued obligation 

to the membership, to express their concerns and obtain reliable 

assistance from the agencies of the Department of the Interior. 

The a s sociation elders like to point out their ca.aents •ade regarding the BIA realignment , in. that they reco..ended •streaaling the Bureau's Task Force April 23, 1991 . A copy of the associations comments sub•itted at that •eetiog are enclosed. Those 

issues ve addressed vere triba1 jurisdiction, land consolidation 

and the individual Indian •onies (liM) accounts trust fund interest 

reconciliation, to no avail. 
208 

A potential concern is the econoaic develo~ent of tbe individual 

Indian's aineral resources, especially bere in the State of Oklaboaa, where reaain vast aaounts of oil and gas that have yet to 

be subject to secondary recovery. Past reca.aendations to tbe BIA 

have been one of indifferrence regarding aineral enbance•ent for 

these resources. The BIA royalty aanage.ent function has been a 

disaster to this point, despite the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 

Manage•ent Act (1983), an Act that vent to settle.ent agreeeents 

instead of the enforce•ent of the regulations, in two court cases, 

(the Navajo and Kauley vs Lujan and Hodel). The reco .. endation of 

the Oklaboaa Indian •ineral ovuers is that all royalty .anage~nt 

functions be consolidated under one agency, which could be the 

Mineral Manage•ent Service (HKS) . A Depart•ent of the Interior agency that bas sbovu to be •aking efforts towards co .. unication 

and syste•s I•provement. 

Indian bingo and other ventures vere points of discussion at the 

Hearing. There vas no mention of tribal or allottee •ineral resources potential addressed. Tbe •ineral owners have sa.e very definite ideals vhich can be discussed at a future date. 

One aajor. concern that needs legal attention { that has tvo Tribes 

here in the State o~ Oklahoma in court) is the question of Tribes 

jurisdiction on allotted lands. In that those Tribes are in litigation by the iaposition of severance taxes on allotted land. We 

coutend there •ay be a violation o~ the Privacy Act on the data 

being received concerning the Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts, and that the fiduciary responsibility and obligation is 

the role of the Secretary of the Interior relative to our interests. 

Another .ajar concern is, the escbeatment of individual Indian 

lands tht continue to be carried out by the Tribes under the Anadarko Area Of~ice, Anadarko, Ok1aha.a, despite the agencya• notice to agency Superintendent's that no Tribes have a consolidation 

agrea.ent vitb tbe BIA. The RIA continues to condone the practice, 

by the Tribes signing of l~ase agree•ents in the fractionated interest o~ the •ineral owner. 
200 

3 

The Oklaha.a Indian Mineral Owners will continue to be actively 

involved, whenever we are inforaed of any future aeetings or 

hearings, that •ay have any potential effect to our land and •ineral resources . 

A Indian Mineral Owners Consultation Forua, sponsored by HHS/BLH/ 

BIA and the Native Rights Fund has been scheduled for the mineral 

owners to express their concerns, issues and questions, and to dicuss ways services can be improved. The important follovup to the 

forum is, vill there be a equitable and reliable trust and respect 

to the mineral owners concerning their mineral interest, and can 

there be a better line of .communication for all concerned . 

ATTACHMENTS 

(1-15) 
210 

P.o. sox 25665 • OKLAROJiiA en Y , OKlAIIQ'IA 13I2S=<J665 

Honorable Bill Richardson, Chainnan 

HouSe Native American Affairs SUbcalllli ttee 

u.s. House of Representatives 

washington, D.c. 20515-6201 

Honorable Bill Richardson: 

January 20, 1994 

we attention you to the letter that vas addressed to CongresSIIIan Glen 

English OklahaDa City office, regarding Senate bill s.410 and H.R. 1425 

legislation, that greatly concerned the Oklahcma Indian mineral and land 

owners. 

At the time the inquiry was being pursued at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

relative to the legislation, H.R. 1425 had been tabled and .was to be acted on 

the day of inquiry. we are still unaware of its status. we appreciate any 

information regarding the legislation status, and inquiry into the lack of 

canmunication, despite the advisement to provide that information to the 

Indian landowners. After all, these lands are our vested interest. So, voUldn 't 

our just being informed, go beyond concern, that is to the point of rights as 

landowners of thoae properties. 

Mr. Richardson, mineral and land owners are just beginning to realize 

the illlpac:t of the Indian Land Consolidation Act and the escheatment of those 

lands, which is an intangible asset, and which has the potential for production and dev&J.opment. 

Eddie Jacobs, Chaixman 

Oklahcma Ccllgrellsional De leg. 

Honorable llllniel R. Inouye 

tbe t>reaiclent of the United states 
211' '' 

P.o. BOX 25665 • okfAHOHA CITY, OKLI\HOMA 13125 0665 

Congressman Hike Synar 

Rayburn House Offi ce Bldg . 

Washi ngton , D.C. 20515 

Dear congressman Synar : 

January 20, 1994 

Enclosed is correspondance that has transpired relat ive to your proposed congressi onal legislation, H.R. 61n &. H.R. 1846, in the endeavors 

of the Oklahoma Indian Mineral owners (OIM:>A), and my prior personal pursuit concerni ng assurance of the reconciliation of the Individual Indian 

Monies ( IIM) trust funds accounts. And, we are requesting your response to 

the present status of those bills. 

we f u.- · -.e r request your inquiry into the SPECIAL PROJECT undertaken 

by t he Of :_ ; : of the Trust Fund Managl!llll!llt, Hr. Jim Parris, Albuquerque , 

N-M· It is our understanding that the recanciliat~on of the TRIBES trust 

funds account s has been underway for a while. Our concern is~ the individual liM accounts reconciliation will begin. 

I personally, have attentioned Hr. Parris to initiate the individual 

SPECIAL PROJECT, by providing a canpiliation of IIM doc\mlentation dating 

back to 1916 of my deceased father, Hr. Johnny Jacobs IIM account, that 

had transferred to my name as his sole heir to the revenue sources. You.r 

i nqui ry , assistance, and timely response to these concerns vill be most 

appreciated . 

'lllose monies that cou.ld be reconciled and generated to the indi vidual 

IIM accowtts, could have a tremendous ecanaaic: impact, considering the IIRlltiplier effect, to the State of Oklahcllla, and especially the sustenance of 

ou.r Indian people. 

Again , COngressman Synar, your endeavors into these matters that concern the indivi dual Indian are most apreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Eddie 

~~ 

JaJ:bs, o;,irman 
~ Gli!IID English 

252 Old Post Office Bldg. 

~ City, 0<. 73102 

DEar Mr. IIII!D Tall.ey: 

212 

Pl!lr our teJ.epb:me CXJDYerBiltico 11-11>-93, that vas vpce the clirectiOD and 

request of Mr. Eddie Jaocbs, O>ai.aan, 0<1- lDdian Kiner.oJ. ()omen; As8Dciaticm , relative to the u.s. Sa>ate bill S.410 that vas piiSSI!d em Feb--

ruary 18, 1993, and the inquiry intO the preseat status of the- of--

pn!&I!Dtiltbea H.R. 1425 legislilticm. 

· Attac:bad erx:1oBUre& is the l!llreilu of lDdian Affairs (BIA) lllrch 31, 1993 

-· 1lbereby the BIA vas to provide the vital infonaticm to the 

IDdian illlottees laDd-<:JimerB, and the Public Notice that vas sumdttted to 

lOCill a-mit}' DeiiBpilper in the QleyeDne and Arilpilho Tribes districts by 

the oca::bo llgf!Dcr, E1 lleDD, 0<1-. Upon further inquiry to the oca::bo 

~tJ officer, Mr. scott ~e as to the proper DOt.ificaticm to the 

individuill ~. he related that tbir office got in trouble and 

-.ue .....Uy .reprl.mded for the r:e.J.ea.se of the infonatico and 1aDguage 

. IDlteDt that ~ SI!IKI out, and further raainded that they -.ue DOt in the 

latJb.riD!I bllsiDess. 

'Die ..-x:iaticm aDd the QleyeDne and Arilpilbo lDdian land---.. ._,.,. the 

JlUIIil!l8 of the palpD8I!d legislilticn by Petiti<KJS that are being cin:ul.ated, 

. wbidndll be attanticmed both to the Senate and -of .n!p[WB~tati'ft!ll. 

'Die ..-x:iaticm litn!Bses: that .well-<lefi.Ded stipllati<KJS and pnwiai<lllll .-

to .;illdlln!aiBI bef<>n! audl an act of OOIIgreaa is legislilted. 11m]' ClliiDI!OIII 

_..·--~ pnaout fiDaoc:ial stability and capobility, and ooer-td~ 

tJi ~ BIA of pn!III!Dt aelf-dete<mnaticm ocotracts fuading - audit fiadings. 
213 

page 2 

Mr:· Talley, the CbaiJ:llliUl, Kr. Eddie Jacolls - his thanks for anr 

assistance into this Etter, that greatly ClliiCe.mS the ind1 vidual. Indian l.aDcl-oomers of their allotted faraing and gra>:ing interests. Kr. 

JacdB IICUld appreciate an acknalllegE!II!Ilt of his inquiry aocm as possible. 

~:;~f~~~~to ~~ R. ;,JJ~ Secretary 

O.I.H.O.A. 

a:: 

~ llcngEessiooal Del-tiao. 

Bill Ridlilrdsao, CbaU.U., House Nathe 

~ican Affairs ~ttee, o.s. House of Rep. 

IJillliel K. Inouye, Cbainan, senate cc..ittee ao Indian Affair&, 

o.s. Sa:late. 

'l1le Presi-.t of the llllited States 

OffiCI!! of the President 

~. o.c. 20500. 

si-,. R. Yates, Coogt r. 

Mo. Ada Deer, Bureau of lDdiDa Affairs 

Board. of Din!ctom, O.I.H.O.A. 
214 

A 

Dk.fa.homa. fln.dia.n. cMLn.na.f Dwn.eu cfl~~ocia.tion. l P.o. BOX 25665 • <l«AADDA crrr. !ZLAID4A • 73125-{)665 

MUSKOGEE DAILY PHOENIX 

P.O. BOX 1968 

MUSKOGEE, OK. 74402-1968 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 

JAlflJART 27, 1994 

Your front page story Friday, January 21, 1994, titled "Tribes Target 

Critical Concerns" is of great concern to me, as Chainnan of the Oklahana 

Indian Mineral OWners Association. I was fortunate to read in the Daily Oklahoman, Tuesday, January 18, about the tribal hearing being held in Tahlequah. The Vice-Chairman and myself were able to attend, hoping to hear input 

from our respective tribal officials. 

Chief Manldller 's statement that Oklahoma is often left out of such hearings, perhaps may 'be that Oklahoma has only one reservation, and very little 

tribal land in comparison to the individual Indian lands. It doesn 1 t surprise 

me the statement Congressman Synar made, that Congress has seen little results 

in resolving the issue of sg mismanagement. At a past Muskogee COI!I!IUili ty meeting I attended, I asked Congressman Syar when Congress would enforce BIA to 

comply with the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA-1983), he 

apologized and replied that he was sorry, but, that he had done all he coUld 

do. Like Chief Mankiller said, "You fire them." But, the mineral owners are 

advocating that the BIA royalty management functions be consolidated with the 

Mineral Management Service (MMS), who are in receipt of our roonies, and could 

have the capability for disbursements. 

The association's concern is some tribal officials assumption of tribal 

jurisdiction, over individual Indian lands. Contrary to the trust relationship for those lands that exist with the United States government upon the 

allottment of those lands to the individual Indians. 

A case in point is the gross production tax that is being imposed on the 

individual members of the Five Civilized Tribes, by the State of Oklahana, but, 

not on the Tribal lands. If those Tribes have jurisdiction, then why are they 

allowing their tribal members to be subject to a State gross production tax? 

Likewise, the BIA should also be questioned as to why the tax is only imposed 

on those Tribes throughout the united States. Further questionable, is a BIA 

SOlicitor's advise to the individual mineral owners that they were subject to 

State and Federal taxes on the royaltys they received, and were to be reported 

as income. Yet, the royalty share has already been reduced by the States' gross 

production tax. 

Another point to be addressed is, the numerous Tribes in the State of Oklahane that are imposing taxes on the Oil and Gas companies which do business on 

the individual Indian's lands, and have very adverse effects. CUrrently, there 

are two court cases pending in Oklahana, to decide if the Tribes have jurisdiction over those lands. ntere is one Tribe where several canpanies are paying in 

taxes "in protest", and those monies were supposed to be held in escrow, but, 

are being depleted. In addition, it must be noted that, to secure a fee patent 

for those lands, can only be issued ui=K)n an individual owners request, through 

the a11ent of the Department of Interior. Even those that are under the State Distr1ct courts, have a BIA SOlicitor in attendance. 
215 

A 

Ok.fahoma ffndian c:MinE.'ta[ Owneu dluociation 

l LETTER TO THE EDITOR •••• cont. JANUARY 27, 1994 

Back: when the Tribes or BIA Task Force were talking "BIA realigrm"l!llt" 

the association were advocating "stream-lining the BIA". The consolidation 

of the two BIA Area Offices should be canceled out. Consideration needs to 

be attentioned to the unique laws and policies that has to be maintained by 

the Muskogee Area Office of sane of the Tribes, specialized personn~l, cotmter 

to the Tribes under the Anadarko Area Office. Especially, the individual oil 

and gas lease s, as well as the surface leases, and Tribes in the self governance project. Internal office stream-lining of each Area Office could be considered. 

Reflecting on the issues addressed in the hearing, it appears the most 

aff ect ed will be the individual Indian land and mineral owners. We failed to hear the tribal officials address such issues as ; land consolidation {the 

escheatment and non-payment of individual lands by Tribes); econcmic development of natural re sources {oil and gas) ; tribal jurisdiction; BIA royalty management; and individual Indian monies {IIM) accounts trust funds interest payments prior to 1985 . The e lected tribal official must be a voice in behalf of 

t he cons t ituency they represent. It is good to see Tribes whose governing body 

is the indi vidual Indians, a tribal council, that has authority over the use 

of their lands and resources by a voice or referendum vote. 

The association will be sutrnitting carments, rationale and recomnendations 

concerning those and other issues, and we_ trust that any further hearings or 

~reeting will be advertised statewide, and vill address the individual's concerns. 

Eddie Jacobs, OKlahoma City 
Tribes 

Wichita, Caddo , Delaware 8 lack feet Ft . Mohave Cheyenne- Arapaho 

Crow 

Asstnibotne-Stou.: Hopi 

J tear llla Apache Creek · Thlopthlocco/ 1936 Act Choctaw 

Creek 

Sen~tnole 

Cherokee. Choctaw, Chlckuaw Chickas aw, Choctiw Navajo 

Pawnee 

Ponca 

Chilocco (ndltn School 

i~~c:~c~~:~.u. Sac and Fox Southern Ute Ute Mountain Ute Ute (Northern Ute) 

Shosl'lone and Arapat'1oe T ohono 0 • OdhaJI/Papago Citizen Band PotawltORII 

Subtota I 

COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT STA

INDIAN TRIBAL DISTRIBUTION

fiSCAL YEAR 1993 

Apr Hay Jun Ju

$148 .48 $165.72 $156 .37 $15

43,098 .04 71 , 475 .50 43 ,684.1 0 41,35

0 .00 0.00 0.00 

19 , 773 .53 20,541.36 11 , 518 . 19 24,09

17,994 .27 3,927 .11 6,321 .88 4,50

34 ,214.10 40 , 745 .77 37,995 .37 38,84

0 .00 0.00 0.00 

853,380.48 776 , 747.70 1.113,686 .26 731 ,01

o.oo 0.00 0 .00 24 

13,728 .33 12 ,303.11 12,649 .85 12,6

3,973.53 5, 350 .87 1,564 . 71 3,36

407 . 77 399 .31 768. 40 35

30,737 .86 28 , 596 .67 37,576.15 23,80

35,494 .34 1!.442 .91 21.214 .90 23,52

1.043,411.03 1.335,916 .77 1,276,877 .84 1,191.10

172.53 339.51 319 .94 32

68 .38 37.69 38 .41 3

0 .00 407.39 834 . 74 

11,357 .31 15,146.31 14,353 . 78 62 , 6

100,038.00 116, 531.74 119 ,487 .02 149.97

449 .01 450.27 434 . 79 43

1.006,356 .77 1, 777.863 .80 951 ,686 .31 1,085,95

179,574 .91 242 .694 .81 97 ,053 .45 157 , 07

544,140.31 521,923.41 499,446.55 409,49

567 ,665. 76 652,446 .68 486,119 .85 783,76

0 .00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

$4,506,184.84 $5,637,454 . 55 $4,144,799 .88 $4 , 746, 64

.! 

31 
COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT STAT

INDIAN ALLOTTED DISTRIBUTION

fiSCAL YEAR 1993 

BIA Office-Allotted Apr May Jun Jul 

Anadarko $437 ,287.95 $366,157 .50 $342,791.47 $399,668 

Blackfeet 4,439 .32 4,425 . 72 4,105.42 4,424 

Cheyenne R her 1,247 .80 1,155.98 1, 123 .34 1.100

Concho 350,232 . 08 311.356 .94 302,126.21 413 ,301 

Crow 3,811.41 2,933 .21 2,801.84 2,904 

Ft. Belknap 1,451 .35 21 ,928 .94 5,898 .02 6,838 

Ft. Berthold 40,361 .31 38,095.88 35,833 . 16 31 ,648 

Ft. Pee~ 94 , 083 .36 99, 319 . 11 155.552.99 94 , 091

Hlchigan 48 .67 41 .68 221 .33 48

Muskogee 142 ,066 . 52 131 ,810 . 15 126 ,422 .89 131,591 

Navajo 268, 123 .80 208 ,656 .87 214,083 .08 184,894 

Pawnee 36 ,114. 74 38 , 124 .04 31,162 . 13 31.221

Shawnee 91 ,619 .67 10, 219 .92 80,406.65 14,269 

Southern Ute 15,407.41 20.191 .32 12.265.36 20,408 

Yurt le Mountain 10,011.19 -1,998 .31 915 .92 1, 081 

Ulntah and Ouray 154,594.56 165, 821.16 131.190.81 151 ,811

Wind Rtver 19 . 384 .34 22.141.58 21.681 .16 21.992 

Wind River Settlement 1.141.59 1,317 .50 1,214 .46 1.300 

Su~total $1,617,499.13 $1, 502.425 .25 $1 ,<75.869. 50 Sl. 584 .676 

INDIAN TRIBAL AND ALLOTTED DISTRIB

Distributee Apr May Jun Jul 

Cook In let Reglon, lnc. (CJIU) $0 .00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $0 

Trlba I 4,506, 264 .64 5,637 ,454.55 4. 744.799 .88 4.746 ,641

Allotted 1.617 , 499 . 13 1,502,425 .25 1,<75.869.50 1,584,676 

Total $6,183,783 .97 $7,139 ,879 .80 $6,220 . 669 .38 $6 ,331 , 316

34 
218 

SATURDAY 

OKLAHOMAN & TIMES· 

Weekend Markets 

21 

Settlement Proposed in Indian Royalty Suit By Bob Vudtwatlr settlement will have to bt Stafi'Writer approved by a federal 

A pocential settlement court befon the cue call 

has been ruched in a be resolved. Ok.Jahoma 111· 191W class.acDon lawswt dian l..epl Strvi.ce anor allegme federal olll:cials ney Steven Hager said 

failed to properly manap this week. oU and p.3 royalty inter· An estlmattcl 7.000 ests in westem Oil..laboma Amencm Lndians. IIKIIC on behalf of t.bou.saDds of of thm iD Oklahoma. ue Indians. included in the ela.ss ae- The propclfoN settlement tion. Al:Jy ot them inter- !S e.tpeeted to lead to the nted i.n lumina more 

ope.runa oC ao omet oC lbe about t:be pow~tial 3dtl• lnteMor Department's meot mtJ crt mo~ de- .ldinerals Manaaement tails by aTteiNtin( e1lhet Service in Oklahoma City of two m~tinf sched· year. However •.. tbl. ~jOist wee , Hager 

said. 

Thel!nl-wllibo 

be1ci.WC!dneldayat7p.m.. at tbe WldUta Tribal Of· ace m ADadarko. Tht _.. 

ond metlin& ill scheduled at 7 p.m. Thunday i.a liM Concho CooftmJC:t Room u tbe Cheyenne aod Araplbo~iD' 

Concho. 

A. feden.l court hi!!U'iDI is expected to be- ,_ ill Oklahoma City. A reOenJ iudle will belt IDIIDbwl of the cia who ban any objection~ to the propueed settlemeot. Hqer said. 

Indian---------
219 

Eddie Jacots. 2908 N.W.2~th.Oklahoma City,Oklahoma.73107 

February 8, 1993 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Office of Trust Funds Management 

505 Marquette N.W. Suite 700 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 

Dear Mr. Parris: 

Aside from the lengthy response time, in regard to my initial requests to examine my liM account documentation for Oil/Gas royalty 

interest earnings, this letter is in response to your reply dated 

January 29, 1993. It seems to indicate to me that my requests could 

be considered, based on the superficial review of the documents. 

In your opinion you stated that, the necessary process and retrieval of additional information for a more in-depth review would be 

recognized as a valid task. Then, am I to assume, or can be assured that such a special project can be undertaken, or is underway, and is there a projected completion date? 

If-there are found to be additional interest due, upon completion 

of a special project to audit or reconcile the IIM accounts, will 

those monies be subject to taxation? I under~and that those monies could be subject to taxes based on the fact they are interest 

monies. But, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statute of limitations, the collection of unpaid taxes on monies that 

are not paid past their statutes where there is no fraud on the tax 

payers part, and that the tax-payor had done nothing to cause the 

delay, then those monies would be exempt from taxation. Since the 

Office of Trust Funds Management would ·be issuing such payment, 

would your office contact the IRS to confirm such understanding on 

my part. And, if such is confirmed by the IRS, the 1099 information 

provided for 1992 may be in error. 
220 

Parris page 2 

In regard to other tax matters, as a member of one of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, my royalty share is subject to a gross 

production and excise tax deduction. And to-date I have yet to receive 1099 information for those transactions, which was to be provided in a timely manner. What agency is responsible to provide the 

information? 

As Chairman, of the Ok.lahoma Indian Mineral Owners Association (OIM 

OA), there are some issues that need to be addressed that conce· 

the mineral owners that, perhaps can be responded to by your De 

ment. Specifically, a January 22, 1993 Public Notice issued by 

Anadarko Area off ice which was scheduled for processing J-anuary 

1993. (Enclosure) Until all liM accounts have been reviewed, how can 

such a change even be considered, to actually assure that negative 

royalty suspense amounts actually exist? As you are well aware, once 

a transaction takes place, there is a considerable time delay until 

a proper adjustment is made. The Public Notice is far to short a 

time for any individual response, to comprehend, question, or raise an objection, if any, to such an action, that probably has been 

implemented, as in many past instances. 

A fiaal,~but~mostcimportant issueois the Iack .. of _communication betthe BIA and the individual Indian regarding his vested interest. 

An example is the route I have had to resort too, to initiate a 

dialogue with your office. By securing a I-BOO number, the local 

O~homa City office of the Mineral Management Service (MMS), there 

has developed a inter-related networking, whereby an individual Indian issue relative to his interest an be addressed, by an exchange 

of information between the MMS and BIA, and relayed on to the individual before re~orting to a possible non-productive agency visit. 

We suggest tha the BIA consider a 1-800 number to be available for 

any initial contact. 
221 

Parris page 3 

In closing, it must be noted that all the mentioned issues were 

documented and provided to the Senate Select Committee on Indian 

Affairs in May, 1989 . In those hearing, there was a comparison 

made that the Indian problem was like some insect that appears 

every twenty years and makes a lot of noise, a~d then goes back 

to a dormant stage. It is hcped that with a change in the administration there will be, a stream-lined direction taken by the 

BJA, and that act i on and decisions can be implemented in better 

timely manner. Instea~ of costly, time consuming studies and 

reports under- taken, and stone-walled in many past instanc~s. 

I request a teply in ten ( 10) working days.· 

Sincerely, 

~0-t"'..J,_ Eddie Ja-;£;-;--

ATTN: 

Ccngre~sional Delegation - Oklah0ma 

Senate Select Ccmmittee/ Indian Affairs 

Sidney R. Yates - Congressman 

Secretary of the Interior 

Muskcgee Area Office - Area Director 

Mineral Management Service - Oklahoma City, Ok. 

O.I.M.O . A. - File 

Enclosures (4) 

86-834 95-8 
222 

DOCUMENTS 

FROM 

PUBLIC 

COMMENTS 

April 23, 1991 
223 

..... d A,1 fO A ..a. {)h.fahcma [/n ian CIVtinna wn£u orHcciaticn 

COMMENTS 

In recent years there has been a number of proble111 areas of the 

Federal bureaucr a cy and i ts indecisiveness of Indian issues which have been the attention of much controversy. However, many of those g> situations are not unique, desoite the fact that l"'any have been at- r:r tentioned and addressed with recommendations by the Office of Ins- 9 

pector Ceneral (OIG) and Government Accounting Office (GAO) they :::.· 

still exist, because dec i sions or solutions were never clearly de- £ ter~nined. 

'-0 

z ..., The trust-relationship that exists between the Federal Government and the American Indians is definitely very unique. the Trust that exists for Tribes, likewise exists throuRh the Ceneral Allottoent Act and other similar Acts to certain individual Indians, also is a unique trust-relationship. 

1;~ - However, the recent attitudes and opinions that the Federal a~encies have chose to assume ~that the Tribes are the voice to ~peak 

for the individual Indian " appear to be unfounded, and in most instances are an infringement by the Tribes in that trust-relation- sh i p betveen the individual Indian and the Federal Government . 

The ambiguity of Federal or Tribal government jurisdiction over the individual Indian ' s allotted land and mineral is definitely a circu:nvention of trust by both entities . Not to mention the recent administrative and court decisions that seem to iaply the position the Federal government has taken. 

Therefore, there should be a ''streamlining" of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) rather than an re-alignment of that agency, if Tribes are to assume or have assumed jurisdiction over the allotted land~ 

and mineral interest- -the individual Indian vould no longer be seek ing the service of BIA agency and area offices. 

~­

t· 

t: 

> 

t 

t: 

> 0 

c -

Considering such suppositions it vould seem to be an appropriate time for Tribes to begin exercising more self-determination. For some, it should begin by scrutiny of Tribal Co!lstitutions for amend ment or revision; education of Tribal members about Tribal govern- ~ 

ment before any chan~e is undertaken, and securing their confidence i' C and support . Hany Tribal elected officials are initiating changes ;- :;t that are causin~ friction and faction A~On~ Tribal members, chan~es •• r which should be taken to a referendum vote by the mef!lbers. Any cir-~ t' cumvention and usurpation of authority by elected officials places them outs i de their scope of authority and not un-der the sovereia;n 1 S 

immunity of the Tribe . Some of those changes that have been initi· \:) ... ated are Tribal taxes. e$tablishoent of lav and order codes, and t other issues vhere juri sdiction is questionable over allotted land:. 'f ~ and r.~inerals. 

...... 
2. 

the Individual Indian Monies (IlK) accounts that are maintained by 

the BIA have never been audited. These ac counts are managed by BIA 

Indian Investments Center. The late postin~ of interest is a major 

problem, alon~ vith erroneous posting, non-payment of annual rental, 

and a number of other reasons the liM accounts need to be audited . Nu~~erous OIC and GAO reports over the years have pointed out this ~roblem-area . A reconciliation of these accounts vas directed by 

Congress More than five years a~o and at this point has barely begun. A recent nevs story reported that two (2) billion dollars held In aany of those trust accounts for Tribes and individuals are over a hundred years old. 

today the Federal government relate that they need to see consi•t- ency across Indian country . Yet, there are problems that isolate 

the individual members of the Five Civilized Tribes, such as the 

selective legislation that was passed years aeo that continue to penalize those individuals in the areas of their blood quantum and 

taxation. The blood quantum issue is perhaps the ~ost obvious in 

that, Congress legislated that in order for those members to retain 

their land and ~ineral interests in trust status the blood degree 

vould be one-half (1/2) degree or more . The Five Civilized Tribes 

only require a one-quarter (l/4) blood degree for full-citizenship . Thereby, with the ~overnment reouiring 1/2 degree and not 1/4 de~ree, 

that accelerates the loss of the trust lands and Minerals. The tax- ation specifically i~posed on the members of the Five Civilized 

tribes subjects their minerals to a State gross production tax that 

reduces the royalty share of the individual Indian, yet that same individual cannot document the tax withheld and receive credit on personal taxes that they file. In addition, the taxation itself is in even a more unioue situation , in that the Five tribes trust Minerals are not subject to a State gross production tax. No other individuals 

vithin their respective Tribes in the United States are subject to such taxation . The disparity among the .Tribes and individual lands 

and minerals have resulted in a hapless situation where the fiducial 

relationship cannot be carried out by the government. Legislation 

needs to be enacted to bring these prejudicial bias into consistency 

vith other Tribes. However, a unique alterative for the Five Tribes 

and individuals in Oklaho~a would be to seek relief of taxation un- der the disclaimer clause of the Oklaho~a Constitution. In li~ht of 

the controversy of court decisions and the intrusion of taxation by 

the State, all Tribes in Oklaho~a should consider such endeavor. 

The Indian Land Consolidation Act (!LCA) 198lis having adverse effects on individual Indians in Oklahoma. even though the U.S . Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional in Hay of 1987 . The Tribes, as benefactors May not chooae to resolve this individual Indian lituation. likevi1e, the 8IA with less interest-holders have 1 reduction 

of their work load. What is QueJtionable in thi1 aituation 11: vho assumes the legal contract for compensation of the individual Indian's 

interest, the BIA or Tribes? Also , the other problem area of the situation is the heirship by probate or will--despite the •tess than tva per cent (2%) interest,• the 8IA must still determine and should not 
225 

3. 

s ubjec t y in dividual t o s uc h a con tr ov er sial provision that ass um es possession o r jurisdic t ion ove r an a llott Me nt, vho s e j uri s - d it ion is ye t questionable. The ILCA esc eat~e t is no t e ve n consistent it h the descen t and dist r ibut io n l avs t ha t go verns the 

e sta te . 

//ft!rot. ure mA/11 " l.lo- A,e~lf·r AI~ ,,.e c.l~ /;, tl·"' t>'PA I 

I/1/u·, t:le /'.;. ;lely ~n•r~, .c.. 1/e r/t'al' ,..,-;.e,....rT; t'''"'t'-

7fAt'rc Y t"?,fl .(t A. ;!,..;,(,,.( ,..~,...;,v 11"'.1 ~ ;;,.., ... 

/., J<nre -t,(",;.. /)rP .fe ,.~,c*-- t,.,·JA/ f-,.. . .,~r /-'fflc-'1 

,;,-~&f., ~ /??P/1 /I"J p;,,/ ,L',fv ,...c. 1~ 1/ e;-,.At,J / .JJ'VIf . rllt.J~,-er_ 

-/{a CPno/' / /lun-1 ,4#//•.,/._ .lj' t'./• l'r//, 1 ~/'.;;,.,;;f ,._..1 

/~/4-',./ /?f""''"'"r ;1/11/"- -{) .. -/en./~r:y ,£, 1"/~AJ 7'.-(IJ(;, 

;;,c/-,;;.,t.,...., l ,.~nsl AJ ; I,{ 4 .S"f"e~s<-ly .rl-"4 <.Jl <! er-f~,;. fr 

/?s ~ / ,,;,.;,;.,,.; __r.,.h,.~$ '"' .tA ~_,, t'e~ t-./'..r...:r, ,;j.,., .. ..-e .-u',., ... 

p../,.1 t-.J~ i;vt"ut p,? ~'" ;,,t,,~sr -1'>-Yt:. ~""- .f~>, ... ,.~fCArni/ •"':If o v r Jesr /J y.~,s:/. 

f?~,l,~pJ -1/e 

f')~ "//?f4/l',. I 

, . r ",: re,.A /1 9"A-'"" 

/v / P t'PI'IP,.;,,, ..t. 

I.J.. dt'.sv;.f"y 

,P~/ h-'.P-' / f /c 

/r,"bl! tA•I /S 

.:u '-" <4 f , 

/( S,s"/C", 

,...J 1'711"';,.,, 
226 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

ON 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL 

The Oklahoma Indian neral Owners Association (OIMOA) contend, and 

believe the current recommendations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) realignment proposal to be disavantageous to th~ future serv- ices of the allotted lands and natural resources of allottees and 

heirs of allottees . As one of our ~ain concerns is the services of 

the royalty management functions of oil and gas, and or, any other 

natural resources that are developed, or have the potential for development and recovery on individual and tribal lands. 

Many of the proposed BIA changes date back to 1950, and a reverse of 

old plans that were never implemented for one reason or the other, 

would be a return to a state of regression that would be deleterious to the fid•ciary responsibility . 

Also, the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs hearin~s in 1989 

addressed other recoo~endations that need to be taken into consideration . One of those recommendations vas, with input from RMAC, for 

the royalty management functions to consolidate all functions under one agency. Senators DeConcini and McCain recently introduced Senate 

Bill-2751 "To Reform Certain Indian Programs and for Other Purposes" 

establishes major chanees, but still needs further clarificfttion and 

additional considerations. 

In Oklahoma, where over 90% of the trust land and minerals are owned 

by allottees and heirs of allottees, the Tribes do not speak for, or in behalf of those interests. the OIMOA has perservered in their efforts for better services and responsible aeeountability of those tr- u•t interests. Despite, no tribal support and reco~nition, of the need 

for assistance. 

Throughout the consultation ~eetings by the BIA officials with tribes on reservations and Indian country : once again they failed to apprise, 

include and take into consideration the views, concerns and opinions of the allottees and heirs of allottees, of their proposed chan~es and 

priorities of realignment ; along with a lack of response despite OIHOA 

importune correspondance of recommendations and rationale to the offices of tribal officials, and the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. 
2. 

A very important fact that is hi~hly questionable is, that the BlA 

has been remiss in their trust respon•ibilitv to the allottees and 

heirs of allottees, in the taxation of thcir.mineral resources by 

Tribes. Oklahoma is rather unique in that the majority of trust lands and minerals are presently in question, as to the taxation jurisdiction over the allotted land and mineral interest. ~hereby, a number of Tribes in Oklahoma have levied a tribal gross production tax on the allotted mineral holdinr.s, at the same time the taxes ve- re levied on tribal trust lands. In some instances the taxation of 

tribal and allotted resources were without consultation and, or a 

consent. or a concensus of the members of the Tribe for taxation on the tribal trust lands, and likewise on the trust resources of the 

allotted lands and minerals. To date the only party to question the 

authority to tax the allotted resources are lavsuits by oil and gas 

companies. There the allottee and heirs of allottee are at a stan~­

still, by lackinP, the monetary and lep,al resources to nursue the is- sue of authority. 

The new production tax levies and the possible violation of authority to tax allotted resources by Tribes, do not reduce the royalty 

share of the individual owners. Rut, these new taxes have had, and 

vill have an adverse effect on future leasing and develop~ent of 

Indian lands and minerals. The reason for these adverse effects is 

that the State of Oklahoma collects a state gross production tax on allotted lands by taxing the oil and P,as companies doinP. business on Indian lands. And until the courts decide who has the right to tax on allotted lands and minerals, both the State and Tribes will collect taxes. The entitiei that will suffer in the duration of the 

duel taxation are the individual Indian, future devel09ment, recov- ery and leasing of resources of their allotted lands. 

In light of the fact, that Tribes are involved in taxation lawsuits 

involving allotted lands: the BIA need to consider a retrospect of a Tribes authority, the probability of a Tribal Constitution violation and usurpation of the authority of tribal members and their 

civil rights; and render an opinion from the Office of the Soli~itor. 

The heirs of allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes of Eastern Oklahoma have long been subject to discrimination that needs remedied in areas of State Court jurisdiction, taxation and leasing, because of 

historical selective legislation. Lannuage needs to be added to SB2751 to make members of the Five Civilized Tribes consistent vith 

other Indians throughout the United States. The individual meabers 

of the Five Civilized Tribes that still own minerals are also subject to the State gross production tax which does affect the royalty share payments, reducing the royalty share, by levyinP, the State 

gross production tax first. Then the royalty rate is paid out, less 

the gross production tax, thus losing credit for those monies that 

have already been taken out, or taxed. If the Tribes in Oklahoma are declared to have jurisdiction over the allotted lands, then the 

Five Civilized Tribes vill again be subject to discrimination through the possibility of taxation by Tribes, and the situation that now exists in Oklahoma. Historically , Con~~essional le~islation has 

been vorded in such a ~ay that has placed Oklahoma in a dubious 

oosition . 
3. 

!he Oklahoma Indian mineral owners ap~reciAte the pa~t opoortunity 

for having representatives of the association serve on the Royalty Mana~ement Advisory Co~mitt•e (RMAC) . We hope to see the recharter- in~ of RHAC, And concur with the recommendotion~ of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, that 3dditional Indian allottees 

be represented on R~AC. 

It must be stressed that a conceot such like RMAC needs to be implemented to solely address the Indian roy•lty functions and concerns, such as an Indian advisory co~mittee . Preferable Indians, and not necessarily trih•l officials, who have a vested interest and insight 

into area5 where ehanP,es are needed, so as to obtain the input of a cross-section nf Indi~n countrv. 

!he allottees and heirs of allottees of OIHOA concur with the recom- mendations of the Senate Select Co~mittee on Indian Affairs and RHAC 

for the consolidatio~ of the r~yalty ~RnR~ement functions under one agency, the Mineral Manane~cnt Service (HHS). 

If the royalty ma~agement functions are not consolidated under one agency, the Indian situation and solution will continue in a state of uncertainty with the fra~mentation of those functions vithin the 

Department of Interior (DOI) a~encies, BIA and BLM. RMAC vill not be 

upholdine its true obli,.ation. 

Should RMAC be rechartered without the consolidation of the royalty 

manaRement functions, RMAC will not be effective unless it bro3dens 

its scope to cover all functions ot BIA and BLM . 

In conclusion, the Oklahoma Indian Hineral Ovnera Association viev 

the realian•ent of the BIA in the areas of the royalty •anaae•ent functions, vith skepticism from paat and preaent experiencea, and see that Bureau encounterinr. a myriad of proble•• in the implementation process, not to mention the intP.rim period. 
A <!Jk.fahoma 

229 

November I 8 , I 9 91 

Steven C. Moore, Class Covnsel 

~ative American Rights Fund 

1506 Broadway 

Boulder, Co. 80302 

NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED 

CLASS SETTLEHENT AND AGREEMENTS OF KAULEY 

VS. LUJA ~ CIV NO. 84-3306.!. 
230 

A 

t.!Jk.fahoma flndLan cMLnnaf t.!Jwm:'l..i cfiHociatLon 

~ovember 18 , 1991 

CLERK OF THE COU~T 

U.S . DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

WESTER~ DISTRICT OF OKLAHOHA 

3210 U.S. COURT HOUSE 

200 N.W. 4TH STREET . 

NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CLASS 

SETTLEMENT AND AGREEMENTS OF KAULEY VS . LUJAN 

CIV NO. 84-3306!. 
231 

A 

{)fdahoma [Jndian cJl!/innaf Own<:H c4Hociation 

NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CLASS 

SETTLE"ENT AND AGREE"ENTS OF IAULEY VS, LUJAN 

CIV NO. 84-3306!. 

The individu~l Indian allottee and heirs of allottees of the OKLAHONA INDIAN 

:IIX:RAL OIIXI:RS ASSOCIATION (Ol:·IOA): "ho own interest in oil and gas leases on 

all allotted lands administered bv the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the 

State of Oklahoma; and whose members maintain that the effects of the fail ure 

of the Department of the Interior 1 s royalty mana~ement function and the noncompliance of the Federal Oil and Gas loyalty :·:anagement Act (FOGRMA - 1982 ) 

have resulted in violations of the allottee trust relationship; and further 

maintain that the terns and conditions of the proposed Class Settlement of 

KAULJ;Y VS. LUJAN "ill cause irreparable harm to any and all future claims of 

the allottee; and dispute the claim that the proposed class settlement serves 

as a class action for the cl.1ss of all Inrtian allottees who own interest in 

oil and gas leases on allotted lands within the Anadarko Area. Major concerns 

of t he proposed terms of the settlement were presented to allottees and heirs 

by the Class Counsel June 19 and 20, 1991 at Anadarko and Concho, Oklahoma. 

Therefore, in the best interest of the allot tee, the folloliing concerns and 

rationale are addressed as they appear in order on the settlement agreement. 

A. TIMELINESS OF PAYMENI: . 

lihereas the non-Indian royalty owner receives payment 60 days from 

the date of production, the P,overnment contends that they have 90 days to pay 

the allottee. FOGRMA requires that from the time of the sale of the product, 

the energy companies have 30 davs to issue payment and reports and by the end 

of the followin~ 30 days payment should be received by the allottee. OIOOA 

contend that the extra 30 days is a result of the fr.lgrnP.ntation of the service 

of the agencies involved; and that that issue be resolved by the placement of 

all roy•lty mana~ement functions under one Departl'lent of Interior agency, the 

Mineral aanagement Service. 

D. INTEREST PAYNE.'ffS 

The Explanation of Payments {F.OP) reports do not identify the Interest 

Payme nts as such . The interest that accrues as a result of the ~overnm~nt's 

del3y of Monies is subject to taxes according to the rulings of the Internal 

Revenue Servi ce 1~5 . Is that interest that has accrued as a result of late 

ca:~-:r:ents by t:;~ C! l and g;<ts industry su, jec t to t axes? Should the allottee b~ 

st.:b jec : to taxes on tax exempt mo nies, by the delay of the go\'e r nment ti~el

ness of p3~~ent. The allottee need to be provided tax inforPJation, and t.:hich 

ar,e:-~c y 1o.·ill be ?rnviding 1099 5tater.Jent~. ~\o tax statements have been provided 

to the allo tt ee by any of the ,1gencies, or.~~· for the lndividual Indian :-lonies 

( II.'-1) accou:1t in terest that has accrued. In the SP.ttlement A~reement, the De-

;-art~en: of lnt£-rior claims : hey a r e o~· distr it,u tin~ interest earned , ·.:ith t he 
232 

A 

()k.[a.homa [Jndia.n dl1ine~a.f Owneu clluocia.tion 

B. INTEREST PAYliENTS ( continued ) 

payments, but with no code numbers indicated on t he C:xolanation of Pay:nent 

(EOP) report, the allottee cannot !:>e assured that inte rest is beinr, paid. 

The Department mentions the holding of aryproxi1:1atelv 5650,000 in undistributed interest on payments received for all Indian allottees natiom,;ide. Yet, 

this is only a small share of over 2 billion dollars held i n the Investment 

Center in Albuquerque, Nl1. that is totally comprised of interest to Tribe s 

and individual Indians , that has been accruinP: since the turn of the century. 

Hov could this class action be bindin~ on all Indi3n allottees across the 

nation, especially with Sections 22 through 23 of t he Se ttlement Agreemen t ? 

C. EXPLANATION OF PAYliE~'T REPOaTS 

Section 9 of the Settlement terms contains statel':lents of centrediction, and does not fully f:leet requirements of FQr,RNA. The revised format 

is notably clear, but all the relevant information \ihich should be received 

by the allot tees is not included on the EOP' s. The if'lportance of the EOP' s 

statements need to be addressed to the allottee to have a fully underst and -

ing in the process and accountabili ty of royalty payment, etc. 

Section 10, the Department of Interior (IJOI) states the EOP' s and 

payment checks are received within the same 24 hour period. The OUIOA contend that statement to be contrary to the actual tine difference of two (2) 

weeks, up to on month between the date the payment coecks and EOP's are being 

received by the allottee. Many times, the infomation does not add up to the 

amount for the check. The allot tees trust that the sir:rultaneous distribution 

of both r~ports and payment checks does not create addition days to receipt 

of payment. 

Section 11, are items that were introduced by a working Systems Improver.aent Panel, that w3s part of the Royalty ~anaRement Advisory Corrmittee 

(!U"AC) of the Mineral Management Service (}tr!S) 1 whose recommendations were 

wholly contingent on funding. The Chairman of the OIMOA was directly involved 

in those reconunendations as a member of the Panel. 

Section 12, states that the Department vill seek input from plaintiffs in any data and format changes. OIMOA members question just how this 

input is to be retrived from the olaintiffs. If the Department will only be 

addressing the concerns of this class action suit 1 then you can be assured 

th.:it other allottees fr om other areas thoroughout the Uni ted States will need 

a forur:1 to address t heir concerns. The R~t\C .,.·as a good \.forking tool, but had 

a limited scope for coverage. All three agen cies o:~ :ne Depart~ent tha: are im·olved with royalt y manage::-:ent functi ons should be a pa rt of [L'!AC, along 

'"'ith allottees from all of Indian country. 

Section 13 and lL., addresses audits ...- hie!". s:;ou!d be a priority o 

I ndian leases, i s an issue t!li'\t con ti nuall y needs t ·J be address~c!. and '-" i! 

be an imoortant issuP. for \'o:!.1 r s- t o f ol lo ... ·. T~e .. Ir.-::: :ar. 3not AuJit T~c;, , 
233 

A 

r!Jk.[a.homa. [/n.di.a.n. c/V(i.n.c:taf Own.c:t.i cfli.ioci.a.ti.on. 

Section 13 and 14 ( continued ) 

it is to be funded could be effective, but at least 10 auditors would be 

needed to provide just miniMt'tl cov~rn~e for Oklahoma alone. Oklahoma has 

the larp,est nlll'lber of "llottees in the United States. The Oklahoma Indian Allottee generate on a ratio of 4 to l royalty payments for the entire 

portion of Indian country , Tribes and other Indian allottees. 

Perhaps the only part of the Settlement agreement that is not already 

mandated by FOGR~IA is the proposal for a ""local"" office. At the June 19 and 

20th r.>eeti~RS, the class counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the office 

vould only be for rne'"bers of the class action . That is not a very cost eff- ective proposition, in that the mineral owners of the eilstern area of the 

State should have access to same office. The Class counsel was of the 

assu .. ption that Indian perference would be aoplicable in the 

hiring of the local office personnel, that indication vas misleading to many potential i!.pplicants . But, the special provision 

under CFR - 43 precludes the hirin~ of any Indian who have •ny ~in~ral interests in tr us t, o r even the appearance of any mineral involvement . Of the Oeoartments' three royalty mana~e~ent 

a~encies the Bureau of Indian Affair• is the onl y agency with ·Indian hirinR perference. OIMOA members are concerned with the hirin~ of former Rureau of Indian Affairs personnel, re~ardin~ 

past experiences of a detached attitude to any ~atter or issue 

that the allottee have attempte~ to rectify. 

Section 18, the allottees need full disclosure and clarification to a Major Portion Analysis methodology that will assure 

I 

l 

the allottees they will be receivin~ full value for their mine · ral resources . Kauley vs. Lujan does not offer a solution to arrive at a equitable settlement to the allottee . The Indian 

allottee was not involved in any major portion analysis method- olo~y process . However, objections were raised by allottees when 

the government proposed a method of ~verage pricing from the bot- tom to the top of the orice scale to reach a 51% averaP,e price, 

which would have provided a smaller price of less percentftge difference to the allottee. DatA base of the Oklahoma Tax Commission 

must be corrected, prior to v~lue comparision, to prevent erron- eous information to be forwarded into establishin~ a mjority price. 

Section 21, At l east a prooosed '' look back h orogram would warn the Indi an allot:ee that no chec~ ~oul~ he r~ceived . But, if 

th e lao~ ac~ ·· C3n iJ~~:if y a zero dis?ersal, it shou ld be cap a- bl~ to dissemin~te infornation as to wl1y no r oy a lty payment ~ill 

be recei ved . Th e oroposed pr ogran does not addre ss the rec ou rse a c t io n the a ll ot tee c~ n pursue, as to ~hy no ~~ynent was received. 
234 

In conclusion, many of the proposed class action settlement 

agreementss is mandat ed by the fe deral Oil and Gas Royalty Manag- ement Act (FOGRMA) 1982 . The sole remedy of the Departments' fail- ure in its ' trust responsibility to the allottees' rests in the en 

force~ent of the statutory requir ements of the fOGRMA regulations , so afforded the allottees in the trust relationship and the Depart- ment. The Oklahoma Indian mineral owners can only ao~roach any 

claims vith guarded skepticism until ve see any results of FOGRMA 

implemented. 

WE, THE UNDERSIG~ED, MEMBERS OF TH! O~LAijOMA INDIAN MINERAL 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION (OIMOA), PRESE~T ~HlS 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER AT 

ANADARKO, OKLAHOMA, AT A DULY CALLED. SPECIAL ~IEE TING, DO HEREBY 

DECLARE DISAPPROVAL Of THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENTS; AND THE F03EGOING MOTION WAS DULY APPROVED BY A VOTE 

OF 24 MEMBERS PRESENT BY A UNANIMOUS AGRgEMENT, THAT SIGNATURES 

OF SfGNEES OF MEMBERS PRESENT BE SO ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL OF T~E PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AGREEMENTS OF KAULEY 

VS. LUJAN CIV NO. 84-3306T. 

DATED THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1991. 

EDDIE JACOj!;CI/AIR~IAN, OIMOA 

2600 N.W. 11th ST. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107 

iM//N~l#it??<?~~ 
235 

U.f'/ //(~/1',/1 ../4/0/4# -1///Yfi'A..<. c:;~.nF.i /?No. /J1e e ft:Vc 

//-/5-9'1 

.26oo IY WI#: 0 t'C 

§'~ :?rl .1/~-ol"'; 

'?o'T /ti)'jt>Ju...- Cf~u-<id;(:,.J tJ.A 

.Llfz/6'1 ~ tV}J2u. 736":1,/ 
236 

IN THE .UNITED STATES COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

DAVID KAULEY. MARY LIMPY, 

and THELMA HAAG. on behalf 

of themselves and all others 

similwly situated, 

PLAINTIFFS, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and DONALD P. HODEL. as 

Seaetwy of the lnteria. 

DEFENDANTS. 

CASE NO. CIV-84·3306· T 

JOINT RESPONSE TO OKLAHOMA INDIAN MINERAL 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL 

OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Ptrsuant to the COI.rfs Order of November 20, 1991. the pa1ies to this action file 

this response to the objection to the j:roposed settlement. filed by the Oklahoma lncian 

Mineral Owners Association (OIMOA) on November 19, 1991 . 

A, INTRODUCTION 

1. It is apparent !rom the Notice of Disawoval (hereafter, "Notice") that twenty-lOU" 

(24) members of the Oldahoma lncian Mineral Owner's Association (OIMOA) held a 

special meetlng on November 15. 1991. in Anadarko, Oklahoma. The pu-pose of this 

meeting was to specifically respond to the settlement documents mailed members of the 

~class. Some of the OIMOA members at said meeting we members of that class. 

2. The mailing of the Notice of Proposed Settlement was made in October of this 

year by the Btseau of Indian Affars, po.rsuant to the Cou1's ader of October 1, 1991 . 

The mailing went to over 7,000 individual Indian allottees from the Anadarko area. A 
237 

mailing of this size was necesse~y because this lawsuit was designated as a class action 

by this Court on October 23. 1987. under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3. Rule 23 requires individual notice to class members in pending settlements of 

class action litigation. Each of the twenty-four OIMOA who were members of the~ 

class should have received that notice. Mcreover. each of those persons received the 

1987 notice of the pending class action desigJation in this suit. if they owned mineral 

interests in the Anadarko Basin. 

1 The parties to this proceeding. and, to the best of our 

belief. the Court. did not receive any opposition to the class action designation from 

either the OIMOA cr any in<ividual person objecting to the settlement. Indeed, the p811ies 

are unaware of any real opposition to the class action desigJation filed with this Court cr 

indicated to any representative of the parties between 1987 <tld the present.2 

4. In general. OIMOA's comments can be ch•acterized as ageeing with much of 

the Settlement Ageement. but believing that is should go fiSther on certain issues, cr 

disputing whether the Department is complying with the Settlement Ageemerit. In 

response to the frst concern. its is the very nat11e of a settlement of litigation .• that nei~t 

party obtains exactly what it sou~t. However. in this case. it is der• that the Plai.ntiffs 

have obtained substantial commitments from the Deplr'tment and would sigJificantly 

benefit by its approval. 

5. The Court may also note that OIMOA has questioned the Department's 

implementation of the Settlement Ageement befcre it has been approved. The 

OeptV'tment has taken many steps to implement pcrtions of the Settlement Ageement 

prier to its approval simply because it believed some the these changes are needed, and 

as a show of good faith. Nevertheless. any sltepticism OIMOA may feel concerning the 

Departmenrs !lither implementation of the Settlement Ageement should be reserved 

until there is an approved Settlement Ageement. 

; This notioe is also r~red tilde~ FU9 23 of tl9 F..:!eral Rul416 of Civil Prooed\.n. 

2 It should be noted by ~ CoU't flat Plaintifla' coU'18el have receiVe upwards of 200 tal~t calls 

sttkn;j infonnacon about tlt oetlltmtnt. or !host c;ajie, none txprta.sed r.a«Yation or objtclion to !ht 

6tmement p-opo5al. 

86-834 95-9 
238 

6. As an added fact. thl' representatives of the class met with OIMOA officers in 

AnadarKo in 1987. At that tim . OIMOA was asKed to join the lawsuit as a party plaintiff. 

The Association declined the invitation and has held firm to its non-party status since that 

time. 

7. The frst assertion of the OIMOA in its Notice is that it believes that the 

"failure of the Department of the lnterioc's royalty management 

function and the non-compliance of the Federal Oil· and Gas Royalty 

Management Act (FOGRMA-1 982) have resulted in violations of the 

allottee 1Tust relationship." 3 

This assertion merely restates the Plaintiffs' basis of this litigation. The settlement 

negotiated between the pnes reflects the Plaintiffs' primary goal of compliance with 

FOGRMA. 

8. The OIMOA next states that the terms and condtions of the ~oposed settlement 

• ... win cause inparable harm to any and all fut~.re claims of the allottee .. ."4 This 

gen•al assertion can only be responded to by adctessing each of the OIMOA's specific 

concerns. The parties will do so in the following sections. 

9. Finally, the OIMOA "<isputes the claim that the ~oposed class settlement aervH 

as a class action fa the class of all ln<ian allottees who own int.-est in oil and gas 

leases on ailotted lands within the Anadertto area:s No specific a gen.-el arguments 

•• given as to why the suit was not ~operly c.-lifted as a class action. As explained 

eerti«, OIMOA wu given the opportunity to pa-1icipate in a claN of all lndan min.-al 

own.-s in the State of Oklahoma, and refused to join. No challenge to the class as 

certified was filed by OIMOA a any indvicilel object« to the settlement. A challenge to 

the c.-tification is out of time and hardy app-opriate now. However, because the 

l OIMOA'a Objtcton atPagt I, P~ I. 

4 OIMOA's Ot:;.clon at Peg. I, Patagraph I. 

5 OIMOA's Objteton at Peg. I, Patagraph I. 
239 

challenge to the certification of the class is limited to this one assertion, it is possible that 

it was only meant as a general protest to the settlement. Therefcre. the parties will 

adc:tess OIMOA's concerns in the crder they were given. 

8. TIMELINESS OF PAYMENT 

10. The time period in which the royalty payments are made has been the subject 

of extensive litigation and discovery in both this case and a similar case t:rought by 

Navajo allottees. 6 In both cases. the Plaintiffs have recognized that the Department 

must have some time to receive. process, and disburse the royalty payments received. In 

general. oil a gas is produced and sold in one month by a lessee. The lessee receives 

payment fer the oil a gas and then makes payment to the Department by the end of the 

second month. These activities account fer thi1y to sixty days, which is the general 

industry p--actice. 

11 . Since the Depar1ment receives the bulk of the royalty payments !rom lessees at 

the end of the month, the payment schedJie ageed to in the settlement give the 

Department 30 to 32 days to deposit the check received !rom a lessee/payer into a 

general account, appation the payment to specific leases, transfer the money to the 

app-op"iate Blreau of lnaan Affars (81A) office, and then avide the royalty payment 

among the multiple lncian allottee owners. 

12. App-oximately 75 to 80 percent of the payments are astributed within twenty 

days of receipt by the Mineral Management Service (MMS). Within thny days of receipt 

by MMS, appr-oximately 95 percent of the royalties have been cistributed. 

13. The Plaintiffs in this matter have been given eX1ensive information concerning 

these functions. They have agreed that the desaibed time periods are reasonable. In 

fact. the Depar1ment maintains that. given the complexity of the accounting and cisbu'sal 

tasks to be completed. no sha1er time period is possible. 

14. OIMOA contends that the th11y-day ci&Qursaltime period could be avoided if all 

8 Shii Shi Ktyl\h A§§ocjetion v. Hod$1, Cas$ No. CIV.jl4-1622 M (Disl Ct N. M. 1984). 

4 
240 

royalty management functions were placed under one Department of the Interior agency. 

OIMOA suggests that this designated agency be the MMS.7 This proposal is not 

unlike the proposal submitted by Plaintiffs and extensively researched and negotiated. 

After extensive consideration. the parties agreed that even if centralization of these 

functions would shorten the time lor disbu'sement (a conclusion the government 

believes is hi~ly questionable), it would also involve a risk of redJced accuracy of 

payment and would reduce other benefits provided to the Plaintiff dass in the remainder 

of the settlement. In the final analysis. it was determined by the parties that the proposal 

contained in the settlement agreement provides the best balance between rapid 

payment, local involvement of the BIA, computerized monitoring by a centralized MMS 

office, and the establishment of a local MMS office. 

C. INTEREST PAYMENTS 

15. The OIMOA raises several issues in this paragraph. Each will be adctessed 

sepNately. Frst. the BIA is working on an enhancement to the system to provide for a 

transaction code on the Explanation of Payment (EOP) Report to incicate the payment of 

late interest from a lessee/payor. The agreement also contemplates the MMS, BIA and 

the Allottee& negotiating on additional enhancements to the EOP, if warranted after using 

the ctJTent repor1ing form for a period of time. 

16. Second, the OIMOA raises a question concerning the tax status of two cifferent 

types of interest eNOed on royalties.• The tax status of interest income, inducing who 

should provide a 1 099 statement. is clearly beyond the scope of this lawsuit and 

settlement. However. the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that such income is 

taxable. 1 Only Congress could change this scen.-io by amencing the Internal 

Revenue Service Code. While the DeP«tment will examine OIMOA's request, it is not 

related to FOGRMA compliance or this settlement and should not concern this Court. 

7 OIMOA's <>qeclon at Page 1, P81ag1111X12. 

a OIMOA's Qqecoon at Page 1, P81agft~P'i3 . 

9 iRS Rev. Ri.ie 67·284. 

5 
241 

17. Finally, the OIMOA raises the issue of the distribution of previously acaued 

interest. , o OIMOA's concerns relate to Page 5. Paragaph 8 of the Settlement 

Ageement. OIMOA states that the $650.000.00 fa- acaued interests is "only a small 

share of over 2 billion dollars held in the Investment Center in Albuquerque. N.M ... : 11 

t8. To put the OIMOA's comments in perspective. it should be noted that the 

Settlement Ageement does not determine a dollar figure which should be distributed. 

but rather a ethodby which interest held (whatever the amount) will be distributed in a 

timely and fair manner. This limitation is consistent with the parties' position that this is a 

lawsuit fa- FOGRMA compliance, not fa- damages. If the actual interest fa- all Indian 

allottees nationwide is determined to be geater than $650,000.00. then that geater 

amount will be distributed. 

19. It must also be noted that the two billion dollars the OIMOA refers to is largely 

the principal held fa- all lncian tribes and allottees. and is not exclusively ex primarily 

interest income. 

20. Finally, the OIMOA is cooect in questioning whether the Settlement could be 

bincing on all lncian allottees aaoss the nation. It is not. and is not intended to be. While 

it is likely that the Depwtment of lnteria- will approach other allottH goups with an offer 

to distribute previously accumulated interest income with this same methodology, this 

Settlement Ageement will not in any way bind those allottees. 

D. EXPLANATION OF PAYMENT REPORTS 

21 . The OIMOA asserts that tn. EOP reports do not met the staMa-y rtq.Jrements 

of FOGRMA. but offer no specifics which the pa-ties can ad<t'ess. The pllrties negotiated 

lex the changes and improvements to the EOP over a period of several years. Both MMS 

and the BIA convened a series of public meetings in lncian country nationwide over the 

10 OIMO.l.'' Clq9cton at P~ 1, Paragraph 3. 

11 OIMO.l.'s 0q•cton at Pag• 2, Par~ 1. 
242 

past few years to discuss the format of the EOP repcrt. The parties believe that the 

OIMOA was aware of the meetings and had substantial participation in them. 

22. The parties ere in ageement that the revised EOP has every data element 

necessary to enable the Allottee to determine the basis of a royalty payment, which has 

been the major concern of the Allottees from the outset. 

23. One cornerstone of the settlement ageement is the Olclahoma City office of the 

MMS and the bi-monthly meetings between that staff and the Allottee&. These meetings 

will adctess the ongoing and evolving concerns and needs of the users of the system. If 

the OIMOA and its members have specific ideas and recommendations for the MMS on 

the substance and format of the EOP, they can <iscuss them with the local staff at these 

meetings. 

24. Fl.l1hermore. the OIMOA has misinter~eted Section 10 of the Settlement 

Agreement. That section states that the royalty check.s and EOP reports .ve mailed, not 

received, within the. same 24-hOU" period. The BIA has discussed this issue with OIMOA 

and determined that the daim is based upon the assertions of one allottee, a M". Leland 

Friday. The BIA investigated and determined that another royalty owner, located 70 

miles fl.rther away · from Anadlrto than M". Friday, received his royalty check and EOP 

on the same day, or on the following day, but never more than that time. 

25. lnc:ividual class members raised the issue of the late EOPs at the meetings held 

in June, 1991, between dass members and ther legal counsel and expert witnesses. In 

evry inc:ividual instance, with one or two exceptions, every person raising this ~oblem 

was confusing the EOP with another report received from the BIA, called an lnc:iviciJal 

Indian Moneys (liM) report. Ongoing education between the Department and the 

Allottees, and the plan to mail the check and repcrt in the same envelope, will ctn the 

~oblem to the extent that it still exists. 

26. In any event. the OIMOA has missed the point that this payment system is only 

temporMy until such time as eqJipment for mailing the EOP and the check. in the same 

envelope is pu-chased and installed. This is a major im~ovement and concession that 
the Plaintiffs have obtained in the Settlement. It appears that the OIMOA does not object 

to this provision, and should. in fact. support it as a maja improvement. 

E. FISCAL AND PRODUCTION ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS 

27. The OIMOA does not appear to object to Section 11 of the settlement 

ageement. but rather points out that Mr. Jacobs was involved in the recommendation of 

the Royalty Management Advisay Committee (RMAC). which led to this change. As 

indicated in OIMOA's comments, the negotiations and settlement between the parties are 

intimately connected to RMAC , along with initiatives and changes in Departmental policy 

and continued communication with the Allottee community. 

28. It should also be noted that feedback from Allottees is one of the fundamental 

pa.rposes of the bimonthly meetings in the settlement. The mae questions provided by 

Allottees. the better and mae responsive the MMS management system will be. Flrther, , input on the data contained in the rep<rts will be delivered to Plaintiff's counsel fa 

review. The Deplr"tment will ascus& any concerns raised by the infermation with 

counsel. 

The remainder of the OIMOA comments are clearly beyond the scope of this suit. 

However. to avoid any confusion. the Department wishes to clarify that it is well awa-e 

that it needs to comply with duties FOGRMA imposes fer management of all lnaan 

allottee mineral royalties. However. the Settlement Ageement in this case can only 

represent the specific negotiated resolution' fer this particular class of Allottees. 

29. It is impa1ant fa the Coo..rt to understand that the "lnaan Spot Auat Team· is 

not the Oepartmenrs exclusive, a even maja means of proviang aucit coverage. MMS 

has an entre audt strategy/system in Lakewood, Colaado, which is designed to result 

in coverage fer over 90 percent of Indian royalties primarily through auats of the largest 

royalty-paying companies This audit strategy provides substantial audit coverage. 

30. However. the Department has ageed with Plaintiffs that an adcitional type of 

coverage by a spot audit team. located in Oklahoma. would provide improved protection 

to the allottees. This team. which is currently operating at a level specified by the 
244 

Settlement Ageement, strategically targets all OKlahoma Indian · royalties through 

reviews of specific royalty issues and leases mostly related to the companies excluded 

from the overall audit strategy described above. The worl: of the spot audit team is based 

on referrals from local Indian lessors and l:nowledge of OKlahoma mineral production 

and sales issues. Thus. the Department is providing a multi-layered strategy for 

Oklahoma Indian lessors in which the preponderance of royalties are routinely and 

systematically audited. and in which local l:nowledge, provided in p~y by allottees. 

tcvgets the remaining lea~e/issues audit coverage. 

31 . While the number of auditors is obviously of concern to OIMOA. it should be 

noted that the Plaintiffs have received sig~ificant concessions from the Dep.-tment after 

lengthy and complicated negotiations. OIMOA does not protest the establishment of the 

Indian spot audit team. but simply claims that mere auditcrs are needed. The Dep~ment 

believes that the resOU"ces committed to the Indian audit strategy fully comply with the 

requrements of FOGRMA. The Oklahoma allottees will have ample opportunity to judge 

the a~acy of the audit progam because the Settlement Ageement includes the 

ltipulation for routine provision of aucit statistics and reeulte to allott... at local 

meetings. 

H. Mi\JOB PORTION ANALYSIS 

32. Major Portion Analysis (MPA) is the most difficult and complex issue adctessed 

in this litigation.The pries spent a geat deal of time reviewing and negotiating this 

issue. Plaintiffs' counsel hi'ed two experts to assist them in negotiating and have 

obtained a resolution which they believe provides sig~ificant benefits to the clase. The 

Dep.-tment is tak.ing action. in consultation with Plaintiffs' counsel, to develop an 

adequate basis of infcrmation to perform a valid majcr portion analysis. The prie1 frmly 

believe that the Settlement Ageement represents the best possible negotiated 

resolution of this issue. 

33. Nothing in OIMOA's comments provide a specific aiticism of the proposed MPA 

plan. It is impossible to adc:iess this issue without such specificity. However. the C0\81 

may be asSI.red that the p~ies fi'mly believe that the proposed resolution to this issue is 
245 

a very poSitive step !award. 

34. The settlement provides for the use of price data obtained from the Oklahoma 

Tax Commission (OTC), gouped by Natural Gas Policy Act category. If these categories 

are not available. the Ageement provides a descending order of analysis based upon 

the best information available. Moreover. the settlement methodology meets the 

requirements of 30 CFR §206.152 (3)(ii), governing MPA calculation. 

I. MISCELLANEOUS 

35. Although OIMOA believes that the "look back" progam proposed in the 

Settlement is positive, they believe it should do more. Plaintiffs originally raised the same 

issue, but ageed to the simplified "look back" for a number of reasons. Frst, it is not 

technically feasible for the information concerning production problems to be disbu'sed 

at the same time a$ royalty payments. Second, the progam already ageed to will 

inaease the BIA's cost and is •guably not required by FOGRMA. Thrd, the notice that 

will be sent will provide the AllottH with the telephone number of the local office. They 

may cell there for fll1her infermation. 

In all, the negotiated resolution contained in the Settlement agHment considered 

OIMOA's concerns and reached an appropriate accommodation which providet a 

sig~ificant benefit to all allottHs. 

J. CONCLDS!ON 

36. The conclusion of the OIMOA states that !Jlany of the provisions of the 

Settlement. Ageement are mandated by FOGRMA. That is, of cOI.I'Se, the point of this 

dedaratory action and the Settlement. and is not an objection. Finally, the OIMOA states 

that it must approach the settlement with •guerded sltepticism until we SH any results of 

FOGRMA implemented."12 Again, this is not an objection to settlement, but rather, a 

statement that the OIMOA will believe it when they see it. The pu-pose of the Settlement 

Ageement is to remove the last barrier to the implementation OIMOA seeks. 

37. The Settlement Ageement contemplates a close, working, evolving 

1

201MOA'a ~on at Pagt 4, Pwag!llph 1. 

10 
246 

relationship between Allottees and the MMS staff via the new local office, technological 

advances to the existing system, and improved communication between the local office 

and the main complex at Lakewood, Colorado. The parties believe that the settlement 

enables the government and the Allottees to wa-k together to overcome the "guarded 

skepticism" on the part of the OIMOA members and all other Allottees who have lacked 

confidence in the system in the past. 

Respectfully SIJbmitted this l"d day of December, t 991 . 

1! 

!! -§/c-!.jjV )-~~ C. Steven Hager, OBA • 12315 

Oklahoma Indian Legal Services, Inc. 

3033 North Walnut, Suite 103 W 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 528 - 5500 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Steven C. Moore 

Native American ~ts Fund 

1 506 Broa~ay 

Boulder, co 80302 

(303) 447 - 8760 

Attcrneys for Plaintiffs 

M. Kent Anderson 

United States Attorney's Office 

~4 U.S. COU1house 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

(405) 231 - 5281 

Attorneys for the Defendants 

Ect.vin G. Winstead 

Office of the Field Solicitor 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

P.O. BoxM 

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

(602) 871 - 5151 

Counsel for the Defendants 
247 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This cer1ifies that on the 3rd day of December, 1991 , I mailed a true and copy of the 

above Response. U S. Postage a Hi xed and p-epaid, to Mr. Eddy Jacobs. President of the 

Oklahoma Indian Mineral Owners Association, at 2600 N.W. 11th Street, Ok.lahoma City, 

OK 73107. 

!'. ;-§;c:u~ ~ .J'\..... 

C. St_even Hager -==-.. 
248 

1 

a 

()k.fo.homo. iJndio.n cMinE'to.[ Owneti c4uocio.tion 

OKLAHOMA INDIAN MIN ERAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (OIMO~ 

AMENDED RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL OF THE 

PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND AGREEMENT OF KAULEY 

VS LUJAN CIV NO. 84-3306T 

The Oklahoma Indian Mineral Ovners (OIMOA) file this amended Notice of Di s approval to the proposed class settlement and 

agreements of Kauley vs Lujan CIV NO. 84- 3306T , following a 

meeting vith Joint Counsel of Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

Defendents, held in the Office of u.s. Magistrate Pat Irvin, 

DeceMber 3, 1991. 

INTRODUCTION 

1. It is apparent that once again, the bureaucracy is 

attempting to co•pel us to accept something that is not in our 

best interest. Historically, tbis is a typical scenario • . 

Originally, ve envisioned ourselves as part of the class, however, at this point of thes e proceedings, the Oklahoma Indian 

Mineral Owners find they are at opposite sides to the Counsel 

for the Plaintiffs and the Counsel for the Defendents, by their 

Joint Response filed December 3, 1991. Class •e•ber vere afforded the option of support or opposition which vas solicited by 

the Court, and ve responded vitb the courts invitation and 

accordingly vith the time of notice, all within the periaeter 

of response for objection. The Oklahoma Indian Mineral Owners 

perceive our OBJECTION to be put in a defensive position 

brought about by the Joint Response. We seek the courts to 

clarify the position and circumstances of all parties involved, 

as to how the JOINT RESPONSE concurred. 

To further clarify the OIMOA timing of opposition to the class 

action, members were initially informed by class counsel that 

they did not meet the criteria financially, and as clients if 

we were "diametricall y opposed " we should hire our own attorneys separately (CLASS HEHBER INFORMATION SHEET - REVISED 

6-23-SB). It should be further noted that the class counsel's 

tele pho ne calls that t h e y received continued to seek infor~­

ation a bo ut the settlement, wi t h neither e xpressing objection, 

but with reservation . B. T imeli ness of Payments 

A c o p y of Senat e Bil l 27 5 1 •as i nt roduced on June 18, 19 90 

b y Sen a tor OeConc ini and ~cCa n, anC i s b eing s ubmitted for 

vi e~ . Such a bil l a l o ng thes e li nes c =ul d be v ery h e l pful 

i n r e so l v i ng man y p r o bl e m are as o f the a ll o ttee . Some c hang e s 

to the con c ep t of thi s b i ll wo uld need to be made before such 

a bill wa s pass e d. 

c. Interest Payments 

Th ere rema i n s many a reas o f c o ncer n t h a t need to be add-
249 

ressed for interest payments that have yet to be disbursed. 

Copies of numerous news paper art icle~ are being provided 

relative to interest payment. Also, 'a copy of a new Comptroller General decision NO. 8-243029, dated Ma rch 25, 1991 , 

which could be utilized as a directive in regard to a term 

such as the settlement of paragraph 27. 

o. Explanation of Payments 

The new format for the EOP is an imp rovement, but the 

information being provided needs additional work. With the 

recent payment of interest, can interest income be accounted for on this f ormat as to rate, period paid, and identify 

to princ i ple amounts assessed? Th e OIMOA has always b e en a 

willing participant to improve or change any reports or conditions that would be to the betterment of their interest. 

E. Fiscal and Production Acc o unting Systems 

Historically, t h ese s ystems and the manner or processes currently employed in Mineral Management Service ( MMS) 

auditing is a primary source of distrust for allottees. MMS 1 

current data base is maintained and volumes and values are 

inten ted to reflect lease level reporting . However, EOP's 

and Royalty Reports from MMS are not consistently lease 

level, and volumes and values are often reported as gross 

well levels . A.n examination of EOP elements does not indicate the'f<l.f l.~f data being given to allottees. Further, 

the accuraCy Of this information is also qu esti onable. It has 

been, and can be shown that non-reporting or inaccurate data 

is being submitted by Industry. 

The Settlement Agreement provides for comparisons of data 

submitted by payers and operators, identification of improper 

recoupments, allowances, and severance tax deductions, and 

exception reports to identify royalty rate differences. It is 

fundamental that the accuracy of these automated functions is 

dependent on the accuracy of initial data. What benefit is 

gained by enhancing a system yet providing no safeguards for 

accurate reporting. 

The proposed automated functions of identification of improper recoupments, allowances, and severance tax deductions 

and incorrect royalty rate are elements normally discovered in 

auditing. ·.;..•" ... -. Howevei:'-f'"'\: ~·it-t;.!> •U , the point of having an audit completed 

involves, at times, yeitrs··· of waiting. One of the steps prior to 

an audit is the desk review. This process is nothing more than 

a comparison of MMSJBureau of Land Management (BLM) data !or 

the usual time period of one (1) year. It would seem apparent 

that analyzing one random year of data in the lifetime of a 

well is a very limited analysis and can, in no way, reflect a 

complete and accurate audit picture. 

The Se ttlement Agreement provides that there was little disagreement as to the details of the Department's ( MMS) Comprehensive Audit Strategy. It has been explained by Counsel for the 

Department and Class that this strategy is How the audit process is implemented and not the accuracy or-rnaccuracy of the 

process being implemented. This process~ which can be shown i s 

defective, should be the element to change rather than insuring 

that this quest ionable process is ever further im?lemented. 
250 

E. Fiscal and Production Accounting Systems 

It has been stressed by counsels for MMS and the Class 

that this Agreement could represent a starting point to correct the entire process, and the Joint Response states "The 

Oklahoma All o ttees will have ample opportunity to judge the 

adquacy of t he audit program . .. • Why observe for any fut ure 

time period, the inadequacies we have had to live with for 

the past years. If this is a beginning, we need to begin with 

accurate data and processes. 

H. Major Portion Analysis 

Discussion held in a meeting with Class counsel, not 

enough information was provided to OIMOA to determine what 

their methodology will be. The way the government plans to achieve an MPA are already in the new valuation regulations. 

Is the MPA in the· settlement agreement different than the 

valuation regulation currently being used? At this point, 

the reason MPA has not been c ompleted, a data base was not 

available. why should this take up to a year for completion? 

1. Miscellaneous 

We are in agreement vith the 11 look back program". Perhaps a toll-free number could be provided, such as is being 

provided to Industry, since a majority of Indian mineral 

owners do not have the luxury of a telephone. The language 

in Sections 25, 26, and 27 is unacceptable. "Loopholes" 

can be created and provides the Department a means of noncompliances with responsible accountability to carry out what is to be implemented. 

Before we conclude, an important mandate of the Federal 

Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA) that ia provided 

was omitted in the Agreement, that ia on-aite lease inspections. It was pointed out by the Senate Select Committee on 

Indian Affairs that the BLM has done very little field vork. 

Con;ress this year , mandated that all Indian lea••• vould 

be inspected, a task that has never been carried out. On 

site inspection are the only way to accomplish certain tasks 

such as oil theft, oil spills, faulty equipment and ~her 

phases of compliance. 

conclusion 

Upon conclusion of the December 3 informal meeting held 

with counsels for the Class and Department ~ the OIMOA representatives were informed that we either accept the whole 

agreement as pr•sented, or diBapprove the vhole agreement. 

After due consideration, and the directive and authority 

given the Chairman of OIMOA, and discussion with members. It was agreed that OIMOA disapprove the Settlement Agree- ment as presented, based on the content of reasons amended, 

and the trust o! the many members OIMOA represent. 

Submitted t he 5th day of December , 1991 . 

Eddie Jac£s: Chairman 

OIMOA 
~1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

DAVID KAULEY, et. al. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

UUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

et.al. 

Defendants. 

No. CIV-84-3306-T 

PROFFER OF PROOF AND PROPOSED WITNESS LIST 

This case is set for hearinq on the proposed class action 

settlement heretofore noticed to the class. The parties expect to 

offer the following: 

I. Preliminary statements. 

A. Steve Hager and Steven Moore, for the class 

B. Edwin Winstead and K. Kent Anderson for the qovernment 

II. outline of the proposed settlement. 

A. Mr. Moore and Mr. Haqer 

III. outline of the defendant's position. 

A. Mr. Winstead 

IV. Objections. 

A. Oklahoma Indian Minerals owners Association. Mr. Eddie 

Jacobs. 

B. Others at the court's discretion, if presented out 

of time. None on file currently. 
252 

V. Proffered Witnesses . The parties are prepared to call the 

following witnesses. (Name, title, summary of expected testimony) 

A. Plaintiffs. 

1 . Benjamin Binder. Computer systems design expert. 

Design and operation of Minerals Management 

Service ("MMS") oil and gas management computer 

systems. 

2. Charles Norman. CPA/Oil and Gas Auditor. Adequacy 

of accounting and auditing elements of MMS 

systems. 

3. David Kauley. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes. Named 

plaintiff. 

B. Government. 

1. William Collier. Area Director, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Dept. of the Interior ("BIA"). Anadarko 

Area. Operations of the BIA. 

2. Bruce Maytubby. Area Realty Officer, BIA, 

Anadarko. Management of Indian royalty programs, 

including royalty distribution, in Anadarko Area. 

3. William Titchywy. Supervisory Realty Specialist, 

BIA. Specific day to day operation of Area realty 

function. 

2 
4. James Detlefs. Chief, Fiscal Accounting Div., MMS, 

Lakewood, Co. MMS procedures for collection and 

distribution of royalties. 

s. Milton Dial. Chief, Royalty Evaluation & Standards 

Div. MMS, Lakewood. MMS Major Portion Analysis. 

6. Kenneth Moyers. Chief, Royalty Compliance Div. 

MMS, Lakewood. MMS royalty audit functions. 

7. Gregory Smith. Program Analyst, Royalty and 

Management Policy Div., MMS, Lakewood. Royalty 

policy issues. 

s. Vernan Ingram. Chief, Office of External Affairs, 

MMS, Lakewood. Royalty owner relations. 
MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION PO BOX 580. OKMULGEE. OK 7•A4 7 1911!1) 1~ 00 Cl AVIJE 4 C?l 

PRUJC•;:.t.l t>•·[' 

May 5, 1989 PEPR 'o R 9[:.. £ :< 

secc·m H• :~ 

Senate Se lect Committee on Indian Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, 0. C. 20510 

SUBJECT : LETTER OF REPRESENTATION - EOOl£ JACOBS 

Ple ase be ad vi sed that Eddie Jacobs will represent the Muscogee (Creek) 

Nation by providing testimony before the Co11111ittee regarding the 

responsibilities of Bureau of Indian Affairs in the area of oil and 

gas leasing and royalty payments. 

If there are any questions, plea se feel free to contact this office. 

Sincerel y, 

,(:_/; ,.,,c:; /{ ;(~ Claude A. Cox 

Principal Chief 

CAC : bh 
255 

STATEMENT 

BEFORE 

THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INCE~i AFFAIRS 

SPECIAL COMMITTE ON INVE5:IGATIONS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

MAY, 1989 
STATEMENT BY EDDIE JACOBS 

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION, MEMBER 

CREEK NATION MINERALS TASK FORCE, VICE-CHAIRMAN 

OKLAHOMA INDIAN MINERAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, BOARD MEMBER 

ROYALTY MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (R~~C), MEMBER 

The mem be rs o f th e Five Civilized Tribes of Eastern Oklahoma 

have l o n g been th e exc e ption to the pre sumption that ''all Indians 

are tax-exe mpt '', in that the non-tax-exempt status of Indi an oil 

and gas l ea ses for the five Civilized Tribes and individual Indians 

subjects them t o the Oklahoma S tate gross production tax, past and 

at present, with no inferences to substantiate the exception. Throughout the United St3tes they are the only Indian Tribes subject 

to a St a te g ro ss product io n t a x. (Attachment A) 

The non-tax-exempt status of the Five Civilized Tribes is an 

issue that has been encountered in the involvement and nvestigations of Tribal and individual Indian leases, specifically, the 

Muscogee Creek Indian leases. Being cognizant of the facts of the 

issue, diligent efforts have been pursued as to the validity of 

the State tax collection being imposed. The validity of the tax 

imposition must be pursued with a conscionable effort by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA), so as to arrive at a conclusive fact and 

refund any monies erroneously collected to the Tribes and individual Indians involved. (Attachment B) 

The authority of the State of Oklahoma to collect any tax fr om 

the Muscogee Creek Tribe and the individual Indian is highly questionable~ That uncertainty being even more intensified in reviewing the conten t of the Indian ~ine ral lea si ng act of 1938: a compr~hensi ve act desi~ned to obtain unifqtmity in the leasin g of Tribal ~n~s !~r nini ~ p:;rroses. in c rease Indi an authority in g r ant -

in~ eafc~ . a11~ t0 protect th~ Indians' econo~ic return on the i r 

perl ~. 
2. 

Further review of the Indian !ineral teasing Act of 1938 in 

relation to recent court decisions as late •s 1987 (Crow Tribe of 

Indians v. State of Mont.,C.A . 9(!ont)l987,819F. 2d 895.1 point out 

that the courts have taken the view that the 1938 Act was to bring 

all mineral lea s ing matters into harmony with the Indian Reore anization Act of 1934. Section 7 of the Indian !ineral Leasing Act of 

1938repea!s all Acts and parts of Acts that are inconsistent with 

this Act. Also, Report No. 1872 from the Department of the Int e rior, 

Washington, D.C. June 17, 1937 signed by Charl es West, Acting Secretary of the Interior recommends the Act to bring consistenc y for 

all leasing mat te rs as the Y relate to the Indian Reorganization Act 

of 1934. (AttachMent C) 

The Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission, appointed by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, issued a letter dated February 14, 

1989 to the Oklahoma Constitution Revision Commission, that reached the conclusion that the State of Oklahoma disclaimed all tax in g 

privileges in Indian Country. (Attachment D) 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is remiss in c arrying out the 

fiduciary relationship that bas been established by the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Section 7, 25 USC 2106, by its failure to interpret questionable regulations concerning Indians, indecisiveness of decisions, and failure to carry out requests of 

opinions . (Attachment E) 

Since the gross production tax is presently being imposed on 

the •embers of the Five Civilized Tribes, there are a number of 

areas that need explanation by the aiA. Initially, when a tax is 

collected, a report is made to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

and all parti~s against whom this tax is imposed should receive a 

1099 form/or ta x with-holding information. Als o, at this point , one 

must take into consideration the time period these taxes have been 

withheld from meabers of the Five Civilized Tribes, (Attachment F) 

The individual allottees and heirs of the Five Civilized Tribes whose Individual Indi a n ·:onies (II ~) accounts ~re ~d~ini r- . 

ed by the Muskogee Area Office do nGt ~eccive 3ny ty?e of ta~ infor~ation !or the e ross produ c tion tax that i s, or has been wit hhe ld. 
258 

3. 

On December 29, 1988 I received a letter directly from the 

Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation,_which had enclosed crude oil run 

statements that I had requested from the Realty Office, of the 

~uskogee Area Offic~. A veek later, January 6, 19SR I received a 

letter frorn the 9uskogee Area Office with a Kerr-~cGee Refining 

Corporation 1099-~isc form for the year 1987. With the available 

information, a comparison was made between the 1099 form and the 

crude oil run statements. The 1099 form that I received~ reported nine months of production, and upon request of an explanation, there was none that could be reasonable acceptable. If I had 

received any tax information in a timely manner, this would have 

altered my personal taxes. (Attachment F) 

I have contacted the Muskogee Area Office and the Internal 

Reven14•e Service (IRS) office in Okla·homa City, Oklahoma trying to 

obtain the 1099 forms to amend prior year iax returns, and to date 

! have yet to receive those forms. If, and when I obtain any correct information, do I direct the IRS to t~e Bureau of Indian Affairs for an explanation of the circumstances such as; can prior 

years be amended; has this cost ~e money; and if there are penalties, who will those penalties be assessed against? (Attachment G) 

There is another isolated problem at the Muskogee Area Office, 

that needs to be addressed. Which is,_ the imposition of the Windfail Profit Tax (WPT) in 1980 and 1981. This is the period when 

the WPT was first imposed, and there was at that time, some question as to whether the Five Civilized Tribes should be assessed 

those taxes~ The'indecision and failure to notify the Oil Companies 

in a timely manner resulted in those taxes being withheld~ When a 

decision was finally determined that the Five Civilized Tribes were 

not subject to the WPT, approximately one year of taxes had been 

collected. There again, why was there indecisiveness by the Muskozee Area Office or BIA, in that the Five Civilized Tribes would 

be the exception. 

Also, in tllat time pariod, the financial posting fron manual 

t o c om p u t e r ..... .:: s i :-: t r J. n s i t i o n f r o 1""1 the B I A t o t h e ::in e r a 1 s ~l.l n age -

oent Service (~~S). In the interim, the ~uskogee BlA should have 
259 

4 • 

filed a claim for refunds of the taxes that ~ere withheld. !he 

transfer of information in the posting transition was not complete, 

in that, not all leases had bee n assessed the WPT, o r were identifi ed at that ti~e. 1 und e r stand th ere ar e o ut s tandin g WPT monies 

due with compounded , interest. How eve r, these types of payments are 

not identified on mo nthly disb ur semen t statements, a nd the liM account h older would not be a~are if any o r a ll payments were reimbursed . 

There are a numb e r of other pr ob le ms and recommendations that 

need to be addressed and commented on in general terms on ea c h 

issue. These include: Lost or Delayed Int erest Pa yments ; Valuation 

issues; Non-payment and Unde r-pa yments; Leases Irregularities; 

Lease Monitoring; Drainage ; Audit Creditability; Recoupments; Allowances; Probates; Rights-of-way. (Attachment H) 

In clOsing, express my appreciation to the effort nov being 

put forth in these very important matters that have been a detriment to the Indian Tribes and Ind v idual, we hope that the consequences of these hearings will be more than just a series of reports 

---- that positive action can be taken to correct the fiduciary 

relationship: 
260 

(Attachment H) 

part 1 

Recommendations fa~ Problem Areas 

The f ol l ow in g recommendations are directed to the prob l em areas I 

made reference to in the July 16, 1988 statement to the Creek Nation 

Task Force and the Special Committee on Inv es tigati v e of the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs, that individual Indian mineral and 

land owners continue to encounter. (copy in c luded) 

TA X ISSUE S The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA ) and the Office of 

the Solicator as their legal ad v isor, need to issue a position 

p ape r that would specifically sta te their policies pertaining t o 

tax issues that presently need clarification; and those that will 

be subject to change. In follow-up, the BlA needs to advise those 

individuals that will be affe~ted to those tax changes, and relate 

the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service (lRS). 

LOST OR DELAYED INTEREST PAYMENTS The B!A branch of investments 

made mention of a reconciliation project, but no written notice on 

the status of this initiative has been issued . The BIA has no auditors on staff, so independent Certified Public Accountants (CPA) 

firms need to be contracted, to identify the proper principle accounts whi c h were the source o f the accrued interest. Als o , the 

interest that has accrued as a result of compounded intcr c~ t on 

interest and at the proper rate for those periods. 

VALUATION ISSUES The valuation issues could be resolved by doing 

majority price analysis on al~ Indian leases, with those analysis 

being used as part of completion of competant audit work. 

NON-PAYMENT AND UNDER-PAYMENTS The Bureau of Land Manag emen t (B LH ) 

wi l l still be responsible for l ease monitorinp, whc•n thr or.\-: Production Accounting and Auditing System (PAAS) is b r OliRit t on -litle 

f or on-shore prodtJction. lf o~ever, the extended peri o d of tim e tl1~t 

B L N o ff i c i a 1 s r e 1 a t e c1 to , "p e r i o d i c checks ~ in ~ f'l .1 c1 P o 11 r. ~ ~ \" ~ r y 

three years," i s o f grea t conce rn too because ~1iner<l.l ~!nn.1r.ernent 
26i 

2. 

Service• (HMS) recommendations are thnt 7.ero soles Jill no lnnr,er 

require a report. Individual Indians have a need to know of no 

••las as well as errors. Royalty payments are relied on by individuals as a sole source of income or play a major share of a monthli 

budget. lf for some valid ~eason, wells are shut down temporarily, 

sufficient time for financial arrangements could be undertaken. If 

wells are to be plugged, owners need to be informed immediately so 

as to initiate the termination of leases. 

LEASE IRREGULARITIES The BIA has not been consistent in their leasina policy. For example, ~ineral shares of the heirs of allottees 

of the Five Civilized Tribes are not placed on a competitive bid 

docket, yet they are under the supervision of the BlA, Muskogee 

Area Office. I personally was informed that to lease my mineral 

shares I would have to find a interested party, even though my 

mineral interests are in restricted trust land status. Thus, the 

trust status of the lands are not removed; though they are administated throuah the State Courts, they remain .nder the supervision 

of the JIA. 

LEASE MONITORIRG The Bureau of Land Manage•ent •aintains that due 

to bein& under-staffed, they are unable to make •ore frequent onsite inspections than the "once every three years," then the Indian 

leases need to be contracted to Indian Tribes or to priv~te contractors; so that each lease can be inspected and reports given on 

a weekly or monthly basis to Tribes and BlA, for the individual to 

obtain access to that information. 

DRAINAGE ILK needs to contract with experts and utilize the !~test 

equip•ent available to conduct reservior test. Monitoring of adjacent surrounding non-Indian leases $hould, also be required even 

when their is no lease agreement for min<'r.1l:'i in "ff<"!f't for Jndi:HI 

ownera. Without more stringent ~onitoring this problem ~ill persi~t. 

86-834 95 - 1 0 
262 

3. 

AUDIT CREDITABLlTY MH S audits mineral and mining l r:ses for Indian 

and Federal lands. States and Tribes can enter into 202 and 205 

contracts to audit their leases, but individual Indians must rel y 

on MMS to audit and then we are provided a summary report from BIA. 

BIA has not been very responsive to any request for information. 

MM S only pr ovi d es audit coverage f o r mineral and minin ~ le ases, 

other t yp es of monies that are generated t o Individual Indian Mon ey 

(IIM) accounts from other sou r ces th a t BIA administer are n o t audited . Posting of monies to liM ac cou nt s before 1982 sometimes took 

up to six months to post. Can Indi ans be assured that interest •as 

ever paid which should ha ve been cre dited to their liM accounts. 

Today there is still ~n eighteen day dela y for posting of royaltie s 

to the liM accounts. 1 have b ee n told interest is paid and reported on the semi-ann\l•.al report of our liM ledger account. This report 

cannot be understood because it is just a series of n11mhrrs, unless yo u have a code book the report is useless and we still question if interest was act•lly paid. To help solv e part of this pr o -

blem make the monthly and semi-annual reports so that individual 

Indians can at least tell if interest has been paid for delays at 

HHS or BIA. Audits that have been done by MMS would only catch I~te 

posting of royalties since the conversion to computers. I have 

pointed out that BIA was guilty of post i ng initial royalty payments 

after interest was computed on the semi-annual report to the Office 

of Inspector General (OlG), the OIG agreed that there was a problem 

but that it would have to be looked at later. 

RECOUPHENTS Over-re,oupments should be placed on a high priorty 

because each dollar a Indian is entitled to means alot to them. the 

American Indian is one of the most economically depressed s·ace of 

people in the United States. ln the past recou~ments have been the 

results of under-estimation of estimated payments for gas ro y alti es 

due. Enere.y comp a nies ha v e been af forded an .'lflp<'!<d pr nrf·S!'> '"hi l f' 

In dians in tlte past have not bee n of fered sucl1 an option. Whe n tl1e 

estimat ed pa yment problem is resol ~ed the recoupments ~ill be he ld 

to ve ry small adju s tments. 
4. 

ALLOWANCES There must be periodic checks to assure ·~at allowances 

are not inflated. The only check now is audit which we have been 

told are done on a six year cycle. If Indians were provided more 

information as to code numbers we could distinguish ~hich each allowance charge represents, so inconsistances would b e recognized. 

With added information problems could be cor rect e d in a timely 

manner. l have been told that code numbers would soon be added bu t 

as of my last monthl y statement no number s have been supplied. 

PROBATES Heirs of allottees of the Fi ve Civi lized Trib es are no t 

afforded this service by the So licitor's office. Even when heir s 

meet blood quantum requirements t o retain restric te d trust status 

of their holdings, they have been told that because State District 

Courts administer our probates we must retain private attorneys. 

BIA is still responsible to these heirs but the y seem t o foe! that 

there is no responsibility. In the western half of Oklahoma exten ded peri o ds of time have b ee n th e rule, but as of lat e th ere ha s 

been improvement. 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY The BIA should be our advocate in these matters. In 

the past BIA has been complacent in trespass violation situations. 

In cases where the land is under lease inappropriat e amounts have 

been paid for land damages to the lessee instead of the land owner. 

If the BIA had a organi za tion similar to the Royalty Ma n a p,ement 

Advisory Committee (RHAC), Indians could voice our O[Jirtiorl befor e 

changes are implemented . 

The way things are now Indians are notified of chan ges just bef ore 

they are implemented. Right now BIA is working on a proposal to 

contract liM accounts to a private banking institute . Tribal lead ers 

were notified of a meeting in Tulsa but individual Indian s and allotte e organizations were no t notified. Whe n 11M accou nt ~ ~re di scus sed individual In dia n s need t o be a~are o f any cttartge bec au se 

this will ~f fect our money flow. One th i ng 1 ha ve e~ d from 011r 

individual Indian s is that the y would lik e all lltl accOIIflt~ aurlit~ ! 

before any transfer is ma de. When monies a r e f ou n d t o be d11e o r 
264 

s. 

owed then identify what the source of the problem vas and when 

mony is due Indians identify any interest money that would have 

accrued as a result of non-payment. 

The more information that is provided the more Indians can •nderstand the system and any changes that must be made. The Indians 

need this information in a timely manner so we can seek advice and 

guidance. 

appreciate this opportunity to point out and express a viewpoint 

of the individual Indians. If additional information is needed 

please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Eddie 

£,J.J.;..... 

Jac!bs 

~ 

-

Member, Oklahoma Indian. Mineral 

Owners Association 
265 

1..-\ttJ. ch rnc. n t i!) 

part 2 

STATE!!NT BY EDDIE JACOBS 

CREEK NATION MINERALS TASK FORCF, VICE-CHAIRMAN 

OKLAHOMA INDIAN MINERAL OWNERS ASSOCIATI ~, BOARD MEMBER 

ROYALTY MANAGEME NT ADVI SOR Y CO ~~!TTEE R~ AC ), MEMBER 

The Okl~homa Indian mineral o~ners -ere greatly offended by 

President Reagan 1 s remarks . given in response t o a question raised 

by a student at the Moscow State Uni versity. If the President of 

the United States feels that Indians have be e n ''humored'', then ho~ 

can Indian people have any confidence in Indian policy that we now 

must live with. President Reagan's statement that he would be glad 

to meet with the delegation of Indians in Moscow; could have been 

a start, but in reality it was only a gesture by a ''lame du c k'' administration. Indians need to ha ve a say as t o the d irection o f 

their fut•re, and I speak of Indians that are in elected tribal 

leadership roles, Indian organizations, and the individual Jndinn , 

all vho have different points of view as to the needs and concerns 

of Indian people. The reason the individual Indians point of view 

is so important in Okl~homa, is that the majority of lands held by 

Indians are allotted lands, allottted land that is owned by heirs 

of original •llottees, and whose share is often very small. Therefore, it is not economically feasible for each individual to pursue their inte~ests accountability, so we must rely on the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) for administration of our land and mineral 

holdings. 

President Reaga~ also mentioned that the Indians have a ''Bure n u 

of Indian Affairs to help take care ~f them ••. Ho wever , he did not 

mention the fact (or was he even a~are) that the BIA and other bureau agencies that administer Indian pro~ra~s ~re 'rr~ntly bPinr 

investigated for their negli g ent hand-ling ~f their trust rr ron~ibility by a ·special Senate 'elect Con~itt••· 

The Creek Nation Task Force has already di s cov c rect errors tl11t 

will result in monetary recov e ries for tribal l~a~e~, Dtld tltP ro~-
266 

( 2) 

sibly potential recovery of land as well. I, personally ha v e received substantial money recoupments that not only affect my leases, 

but will also impact dther individual leases as well , along with 

a number of other issues that have yet to be resolved. In previous 

investigations· there was little or no follow-up or response in a 

timely manner, and as individuals we need to see positive action 

and not just a series of reports as a end ~esult. This time around 

we would like for these agencies to be held more responsible and 

efficient to the actual Indians being served. 

June 2, 1988, in Okla•homa City, Ross Swimmer gave an address 

to attorneys, Indian leaders, and tribal court clerks in which he 

said, "its time to begin the phase-out of the BIA'' , his contention 

being that the BlA should work itself out of~ job. Regardless, 

whether it .be the BIA or a different version thereof, the United 

States Government must have an agency in existence to live up to 

tribal treaties , Acts of Congress, and rourt, decisions as part of 

their trust responsibility. Hr. Swimmer must realize that we do not 

want to be treated as wards, but there is a trust to he maintaine'l 

as long as there are Indians. Therefore we need to be informed in a 

more timely manner so that we can be actively involved in decisions 

that will have a direct impact on our livelihood. 

ln reference to President Reagan's Moscow statement that "some 

Indians _ became very wealthy because some of those reservations werP. 

overla1ying great ~ools of oi I, and you can get very rich pumping 

oil '' 1 be gave the impression that the Indians had a choice in living on reservations, areas of l.nd that uere set aside as reservations, with the Indians placed on those lands by treaties. In return, 

large tracts of the . original tribal lands were taken. When Tribes 

accepted the smaller tracts of land, a trust was formed that certain 

obligations would be rendered. Indians could have had, and even tod a y, could maintain an adequate qual i ty of life, if wiJat lond bnsr 

and mineral resources we retain are and had been properly managed . 

1 ~ould like to addr·ess tl1e folto ing problem area5 tl1at tf1e 

Indians continue to encounter that I have no~ledce of ttJrou e h my 

inquiries : tax issues; lost or delayed interest payment s ; valuat io n 
267 

' 3) 

issues; under-payments; non-payments; leasin~ irregularities and 

monitoring; drainage; audit credibility; over-reCoupments; allo~­

ances; handling of probates ; and rights-of-~ay. 

TAX ISSUES 

I, personally have written to the RIA and Mineral Manaeerent 

Services (tiMS), and have yet to receive a written opinion fr on the 

Office of the Solicator, of taxes on the Fi ve Civilized Tribe ! of 

Oklahoma inheired restricted trust lands. 

There also seems to be a problem as to the 1099 tax forms administered by the BIA: these forms are for taxes that are withheld 

from Individual Indian Monies account (IIM) holders, we are n o t 

getting credit when we file our personal taxes for the Gross Production taxes that are being withheld. 

LbST OR DELAYED INTEREST PAYMENTS 

Posting of royalty payments have been delayed resulting in 

accrued interest not being paid at appropriate time intervals. At 

a meeting Mr . Jim Parris, Albuquerque Investment Center Officer informed mineral oYners of a reconcilation of the 1081 forms which 

should help identify the appropriate leases to which interest monies 

will be paid. Presently the status of this project is unknoYn. 1 

have requested an audit of my liM account but still do not kno~ ~ho 

will conduct the audit; the BIA does not have auditors on staff, 1 

have suggested that an independent audit b~ done. 

VALUATION ISSUES 

The Office of Inspector General (OlG) issued a report dated 

March 31, 1988 that points out many reasons of concern that effect 

Indian leases. Even with implementation of new regulations problem 

areas still persist. 

NON-PAYMENT AND UNDER-PAYMENTS 

The new Production Accounting and A11di'ting System (PAAS) beinp 

brought on line sh o uld re so lve these problem~. R11t tl 1~ OJG ~~n rt 

of April l, 1988 give many reasons f or concPrn becau s e benefi :~ J:: rl 

cost have not been determined. 
268 

(4) 

LEASE IRREGULARITIES 

There is not much documation to support this area. The reason 

being that most was verbal advise given to individual Indians, advise given by BlA and Social Services personnel based on their 

policies. 

LEASE HONlTORlNG 

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for these duties: 

This agency does not have the staff to properly cover all the leases they must maintain; BLH checks leases only on request; They do 

not perform periodic checks also many times the Indian owners are 

elderly, so the operators are other parties have a "free run" of 

the lands. 

DRAINAGE 

BLH again has not been very consistent in their handling of 

this problem. Many times the land in question is not under lease 

and without proper monitoring these problems will persist. 

AUDIT CREDIBILITY 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has co·mpleted audits, 

but after further review additional monies were found to be due. 

The OIG April 1, 1988 report also pointed out areas of concern in 

auditing. 

RECOUPMENT$ 

HHS which is the collection agency, also Is responsible for 

this function. In many cases errorous estimated payments are the 

cause for these recoupaents. Again I make reference to the OIG April 

1, 1988 report that point out over-recoupments. These over-recoupment• amount to about $227,000) in royalties for Indian owned leases 

and unfortunately are placed on a low priorty. 

ALLOWANCES 

The allowances on individual Indian monthly statements are not 

identified as to 1o:hat they actually ref}r<'S<!nt, i.(l. tr<'tn~flort;ltinu .• 

processing, taxes and other allo~ances. The ne~ re~ulations also 

give oil nnd gas Companies greater authori~y to collect nllo~nncc~ 
269 

( 5 ) 

without MHS approval. Our only recourse is audits, but with a six 

yeAr audit cycle and there is even some question when thi s cycle 

begins. The new HMS regulations say a ll Indian leases will be a u d -

ited within this six year time frame. HHS s taff admit that this i s 

not realistic because t he y do not have th e p e r so nn e l t o a c c omplisl1 

this task. The end result is only random s ampling aud i t s. Again 

the OIG report will confirm what I hav e ju s t said. 

PROBATES 

The BIA needs more co siste y in the h a ndling of estates. 

He i rs of allottee that me e t certain requirement s should be ac c orded the same privileges as the original all ot tees. At the p resent 

ti~e this is not the position BIA and the Soli c itor's office maintain. Members of the Five Civilized Tribes are being discriminat e d 

against, because people have been told this is their responsibility 

to get a private attorney as a result of th e Solic i tor ' s office 

being under-staffed . In th e past tho se pri v a t e attorne ys who hav e 

rendered services for individual Indians h~ve pla c ed liens against 

the estates, with the end results being their shares were sold to 

satisfy those claims . 

RIGHTS - OF-WAY 

In many instances damage pa yments were not consistant with 

payments made to non-Indians. There are al s o cases where rights-ofway have expired and no compensation or renewal ar,r ~m~ t made, ~t ~o 

in the trespass violat i on situation, BIA has not been con s istant 

and in some cases nothing was done . 

The aforementioned problem areas are some that 1 have encountered. I will not say that these are all the problem areas, because 

as the Ind i an people be c ome more informed others will unfold. Als o, 

as new regulations c hanges are impl~mented new ones are s ure to 

arise . 

Before Indian s ar e f o r ced t o r,o o n t o .:\ny n f' "' p r njrc t :<>, t hi11:::: 

that have happened in th e past must n o t be forgot t en. Khat 1 am 

talking about is mon i e s t hat h av e n ot be e n pa id ou t fo r va r io u s 

reasons must be re co nc i l e d o r at least a pl~n d ev el oped t o d is tr ibute those monie s . Chan g e s in the p as t have caused ho a~ be c a u s e 
270 

(6) 

personnel were either unqualified or not properly trained for the 

new system being brought on line. 

One of Ross Swimmer's projects a couple of years 3go ~as to 

ha v e all Indians go to direct-payment an OIG report was of the opinion that direct-pay would not solve any of the Indinn~ problems. 

Each time Mr. Swimmer is attentioned to a problem area he wants to 

"c-ontract it out 11 • The Indians have tl·eard of direct-pay for some 

time but BlA has never set any guideline down in writing yet. The 

BIA must re•lize that Indians have a right and need to kno~ those 

kinds of things since we ~ave been advised to accept direct-pay to 

lighten BIA work load. 

Last ye•r the BIA told Indians their liM accounts were going 

to be contracted to a private banking firm. At one point a news release was sent out saying a contract had been signed. There must 

have been a problem somewhere but Indians were never advised just 

what it was. 

The Creek Nation Minerals Task Force will be making recommendations at a later date, nov that problem areas have been identified. 

I personally plan to make recommendations and as a part of the Royalty Management Advisory Committee (RMAC) will be able to see ~ow 

all advise submitted is accepted. 

I express my thanks for this opportunity to voice my personal 

inquires. Any other assistance that . I can offer, feel free to 

contact me. 

Lt..t _._ ')ff ,..,. t .,. EDDIE JACOBS 
271 

P.O. Box 1671 • Tahlequah, OK 74465 • (Office) 918-458-4322 • (FAX) 918-458-C322 

The Honorable 

Bill Richardson, Congressman 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Native American Affairs 

1522 Longworth H.O.B. 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Richardson: 

February 3, 1994 

Re: Submission of Written 

Testimony For Record On Hearing 

Held In Tahlequah, Oklahoma on 

January 20, 1994 

The enclosed written testimony Is In response to the above 

mentioned hearing. I am hereby entering my comments on behalf of 

the Issue of religious freedom needs of Native Americans. I am 

an Individual Cherokee tribal member. I follow the ancient 

religious teachings of my people's ceremonial, tribal towns and 

of the Native American Church. I am also a grassroots organizer 

and have most recently served on the Indigenous Peoples' Steering 

Conunlttee of Amnesty lnternatlon·al as their Specialist on the 

Native American Free Exercise of ·Religion Act, S. 1021. 

have not sought nor have I been given "official" sanction 

to speak on behalf of my own Cherokee tribal town or of the Yuchl 

Chapter of the Native American Church In Oklahoma to which I 

belong. Therefore, I speak as an Individual tribal member who 

has specialized expertise In the history of the development and 

the suppression of traditional, Native American religions and of 

the need for protections for this baste human right . This basic 

human right has too long been denied to Native Americans In the 

United States of America. I also speak from a specialized 

sensitivity and understanding of some of the principal needs of 

traditional religions through having been an active participant 

of that here In Oklahoma and through having participated In ce remonies with other tribes In othe r regions throughout the 

country. 

Additionally , the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has passed a 

r e.so lutlon In support of S . 1021, as have Amn .,sty International, 

USA. 98% of all th e chapters of th e Nattv e American Church of 

Oklahoma ar e In active support of lhls legislation . Nationwide, 

pruhabl'j 9!l% ot th t: ''nt. trP body of tiH? Nat iv c Amt·· rJcetn f'hu~· h uf 

North Anwt·1c 4 i :.i jusupporl o_f ~- 1 02 1. At th is timl'.' . !IH·r t• i s 
272 

appoxlaately one to two thirds and growing support from this 

country's federally recognized tribal governments and broad based 

support from representative Native American organizations. 

My co .. ents then are to urge the House of Representatives 

through this written testimony to support S . 1021 or similar 

legislation for the protection of religious freedom Cor Native 

Americans. By guaranteeing this constitutional and baste human 

right to Native Americans, who have historically been "the most despised minority" In tbe United States of America on tbe Issue 

of tbe right to worship, you will be upholdlnc your own Constitution, Bill of Rlgbts and the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights . And will be guaranteeing religious freedom to all 

people equally. 

Thank you for the opportunity to bring the most pressing 

and Important Issues Cor Native Americans before you. Wado . 

Jll 

Enclosure: Written Testimony 

7231~ 

le Moss 

onomlc ProJect Coordinator 

Grassroots Repatriation 

Specialist 
273 

P.O. Box 1671 • Tahlequah, OK 74465 • (Office) 9!8-458-4322 • (FAX) 918-458-0322 

Written Testimony Submitted 

to the 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

For the Record 

In response to the hearing held In 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

on 

January 20 , 1994 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: 

NATIVE AMERICAN FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION 

Submitted by 

Juli e Moss 

Tahlequah , Oklahoma 

Submitted on 

February 3, 1994 
274 

FOR THE RECORD -------

STATEMENT OF JULIE MOSS, CHEROKEE TRIBAL MEMBER, TAHLEQUAH 

OKLAHOMA 

Written Testimony Submitted to the Subcommittee on Native American 

Affairs, House Committee on Natural Resources 

As Part of a Field Hearing Hearing Held In Tahlequah, Oklahoma on 

January 20, 1994 

on 

Native American Free Exercise of Religion 

I. Introduct ton 

Indian Territory, now known as the State of Oklahoma was the 

last great Indian reservation. Numerous tribes were forcefully 

relocated to Indian Territory In a time period spanning the mid 

to late 1800's. Many of the tribes were split and there was tremendous suffering and loss of life and loss of significant 

numbers of tribal peoples. Today, there are about 40 federally 

recognized tribes residing In the State of Oklahoma. Within 

those tribes, there are estimated to be at least that many and 

possibly more traditional religious societies, tribal towns and 

re-established sacred sites, sacred fires and medicine ways of 

the Native Americans who reside here. There were also some 

tribal groups who were already here. 

Oklahoma Is now the state with the largest population of Native 

Americans In the United States of America. Oklahoma Is also 

home of the modern Native American Church. Although the NAC Is an ancient religion dat lng back 10,000 years or more, it was 

first Incorporated as a legally established Church In Oklahoma 

In 1918. There are now NAC chapters In about 20 states with an estimated quarter of a million or more Native Americans who 

claim affiliation to this church. Oklahoma and many of the 

tribes that were removed here have long led the nation In 

setting legal precedents and In challenging State and other 

laws, policies, decisions and actions that have had effects on Issues of tribal sovereignty, self determination, federal trust 

responsibility, treaty rights and so on. Many of the actions and 

efforts of the tribal groups and peoples of Oklahoma have had far 

reaching effects not only to Native Americans but to all peoples 

who look to the Constitution of the United States of America for 

basic human rights and the guarantees of the guiding principles 

of this country. 

Today, In Indian Country and thro"ghnul lhe entire country of 

the tlnlted States of Am.:-rJca, we (tl"t:' facing a religious freedom 

crisis for faith communtllPs of all races and creeds, we are 

facing a l1uman rlgltts crisis anrl ;, <:,Jilstttutlonal crisis for the 

t!nit••d Stat._•s of Atnt•ric<t. One(• a~ain, Naliv.-. Amt'ricans flncl 
275 

2 

themselves at the apex of a legal and moral test ot the United 

States Constitution and Its most basic founding principles . 

II . History & Background 

In order to understand why we are at this moment In time even 

talking about religious freedom Issues tor Native Americans, we 

have to go back and look at this crisis as a historical one that 

continues to this day. 

In the 500 plus years since Columbus arrived, there has been a 

history of brutality, suppression, Institutionalized religious 

persecution and a program of ethnoclde directed toward Native 

Americans . 

HISTORIC TREATMENT OF NATIVE RELIGION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: 

There was a government agency (congressional) report Issued In 

1979 . In that report It states that, "A cornerstone of federal 

Indian policy was to convert the savage Indians Into Christian 

citizens and separate them from their traditional ways of life." 

Christian missionaries, as government agents were an integral 

part of the federal Indian policy for over 100 years. The 

government placed entire reservations under the administrative 

control of church deno•inations . Indian lands were conveyed to 

missionary groups In order to convert the Indians and separate 

them from their traditions. 

The report Itself further states that "Christianity and federal 

interests were often identical (as) an article of faith In 

every branch of the government and this pervasive attitude 

initiated the contemporary period of religious persecution of 

the Indian religions." 

By the 1890s, after tribes were placed on reservations, 

government treatment of their religions took a darker turn. In 

that decade, U. S. troops were called In to stamp out the Ghost 

Danc e religion of the tribes who were confined on reservations. 

In 1890, Sioux Ghost Dance worshippers were slaughtered at 

Wounded Knee. An entire band of about 300 unarmed, peaceful 

followers of Chief Big Foot were massacred mercilessly by 

federal troops there tor no other reason than that they were 

practicing a Native American religion. In 1892, Pawnee Ghost 

Dance leaders were arrested In Oklahoma. And soon that religion 

ceased to exist as It was suppressed among other tr lbes In 1892, 

the BIA outla~ed the Sun Dance religion and banned other 

ceremonies which were declared "Indian offenses" and made 

punishable by withholding of rations or 30 days Imprisonme nt. 

In Indian Terrtto1·y now called Oklah oma, aroutld tht! tt1•·n ()f tl1e 

c e ntury, ChP.rokee followers and leaders of tradlt tonal religions wPre imprisoned for retu.slng to iiccept lt~nd allo\m( nt s which as 

h• 11~v rs of fh•·i1· lr>idlti.! ~"' S, tht"':J C•).lf}d not at t' pt Allnlm'"nt 
276 

3 

was the government's program to break up the co,...unal land base oC the tribe and to make way tor white settler.• and .•tatehood. 

Formal govern•ent rules prohibiting tribal religions continued 

Into the 1930 ' s. While Indian people were not granted 

citizenship until 1924, there was an outright ban on their right to worship In effect unt II 1934. 

Serious proble•s In Native religious freedo11 continued Into the 

1970's . There were numerous arrests of traditional Indians for 

possession of tribal sacred objects such as eagle feathers. 

There were criminal prosecutions Cor the rellclous use of 

peyote, there was denial oC access to sacred sites on federal 

lands and Interference with religious ceremonies at sacred sites. 

So Cor Native A•erlca, there bas been a long history of suffering troa covernment religious persecution and suppression. 

Ill. CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS- THE AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM ACT OF 1978: 

In House report 95··1308, of June 19, 1978, flndlncs were reported 

or lntrlnceaents by the covernment and others In the practice of 

native tradtlonal religions during contemporary times. 

These lnfrlncements and the Interference with the Cree exercise 

of native religions happened because of enforcement policies and 

regulations carried out by branches and agencies oC the 

government In wilderness, conservation and preservation laws. 

The Insensitive enCorce~nt or these laws Interfered severely 

with the culture and religion of Allerlcan Indians. 

These Interferences were found to be In three major areas: 

(1) Denial oC Access to Sacred Sites 

(2) Restrictions on Uses or Substances, Natural ObJects 

and SacraMents (some of these Include endangered 

specles) - to the Ccd~ral covernracnt 1 these substances 

have been and are restricted because the non Indian has 

made them scarc e or endangered, or can impose a health 

threat when 111sused or abused such as with Peyote . Although acts or Congress prohibit the use of peyote as a hallucinogen, up until the Smith Decision, (see 

section IV), It has be"n well established federal law 

that Peyote Is constitutionally protected when used by a 

bona (Ide Native American religion as a sacrament . 

(3) Actual lnterf c r t..•rH.: e ln rei iglous t~ v~nls either by 

Cederal officials or olh~rs and Is unprotact•d by 

federal officials frnm tr1truslons . 
277 

4 

After bearings In 1978, Congress recognized the need to protect 

Indian religious freedom, Including worship at sacred sites and 

the use and possession of sacred obJects . For these purposes, 

the Ame rcan Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was enacted by 

Congress and signed Into law by then President Jimmy Carter on August 11, 1978. 

AIRFA '78 was enacted because of this long history of 

Institutionalized religious persecution by the U.S. government, 

Its agencies , law enforcement and states; because Native 

Americans have historically been the most despised minority wben 

It comes to religious persecution and tbe Issue of religious 

freedom; because Native Americans bave been singularly 

discriminated against and do not enJoy those religious freedoas 

that are purported to be guaranteed under the constitution of 

the United States of America and tbe Universal Declaration of 

Human Rl;;hts. 

Because of all this then, the American Indian Religious Freedoa 

Act of 1978 was passed. But It was more of a brief policy statement of Intent without specific protections. AlRFA 1978 was 

considered a landmark and there was great hope. But Native 

American people t .. edlately found out that tbe Act bad no teeth, It bad no enforc ement provisions and was subJect to wide, 

varied and loose Interpretation. 

Even after passage of AIRFA 1978, federal land managing agencies 

(forest and park service) bave continued to be allowed by tbe courts or the U.S. to destroy Irreplaceable, ancient and sacred 

s ltes. In other words, federal agencies bave chosen not only to Ignore AIRFA but to violate its Intent . It bas meant nothing to those who have been responsible tor violations of tbe human and 

constitutional rights of Native people. They have continued to violate those rights witb iapunlty to this day. 

IV. Current Developments In Native American Religious Freedom 

In recent times, there have been Issued two momentous decisions 

by the U. S . Supreme Court. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck a tremendous blow to American Indian religious freedom as well as to th<> Constitution of the United States In what Is called the 

Lyng decision. 

Lyng v. NW Indian Cemetery Protective Association was a case lnvolvlng access to SiCfe6 sites hlgfi up in the Chimney Rock 

area or Six Rivers National Forest In northern California . The 

Lyng de cision virtually nullifies th o Cree exercis e claus e of the 

U.S. constitution and rules that Indians stand outside the 

purview or the First Amendment entir e ly when lt COR\I'!S t o 

pr o t e ct tug t r lbal l lglous ar e as on d~r411 lands for worship 

purpos e s . 

C:;l.'i ~ No . 2: Ji_~~~~ ~ OlvlsJon 0f'l·••n · lmt·nl ur lluman H• : SOUI"Ct'S 

_y__,__ __ ;)nllJ...!L. (1~l~l0). Tht.' high cou1·l wa :i k·~·l t(l pr•JI•· c:· l th•· Fit·st 
278 

5 

Amendment rights of members of the Native American Church who 

we re fired from their Jobs for off duty religious use o£ Peyote . 

Oregon was not at the time, one or the 28 states who currently 

re co gnize exemptions for the religious use of Pe yote . So Smith 

says that the First Amendment should not protect this form of 

worship bec ause stale law made Peyote use Illegal and contained 

no e xemption for native religious use . The Supreme Court denied 

constitutional protection for an entire Indian religion of pre -

Colombian antiquity which Involves sacramental use of a cactus 

plant called Peyote. Smith cut back to minute dimensions, the 

doctrine that requires governments to accommodate at some cost, 

minority religious preference. This Is the doctrine on which 

all prison religion cases are founded. 

NAFERA 1993 (S. 1021) : 

So this brings us to the reason that the Native American Free 

Exe rcise of Religion Act of 1993 , (NAFERA), has been Introduced. 

And the reason why more and stronge r protections are needed tor Native American right to worship . For all of the above mentioned 

reasons , then the NAFERA has been Introduced . The proposed Act 

covers five maJor areas: 

(I) Protection of Sacred Sites -this section upholds, and 

affirms Native American religious sacred sites . It requires 

notice to tribes for any federal activity that may Impact 

spe c !Cled lands. It requires federal agencies to respect Native 

religions. It provides access to sites for religious purposes. 

It allows the temporary closing or some public designated lands 

at specific t lmes for religious ceremonies. It requires the 

Secre tary of the Interior to Identify lands with historic 

aboriginal or religious ties. And to promulgat e regulations to enable consultation to meet unique needs of Indian tribes and 

Native practitioners. It allows for the means to receive Input 

from tribes and act on this for l e ss Intrusive alternatives on 

federally sponsored activities. 

(2) Traditional use of Peyote - This section affirms and a c knowledges religious use of Peyote by Native Americans. It 

allows that the use, po ssession or transportation by a1t Indian 

of Pe yote for bonafid e ceremonial purposes Is lawful and shall 

not be prohibited by the government or any slate . No Indian 

shall be penalized, or discriminated against on the basis of 

such use, possession or transportation. 

(3) Prisoners Rights - this section allows that Native American 

prisone rs shall havP. on a regular basis comparable to access 

afford e d t o Judeo - Chrlstlan religions, access to: traditional 

leade rs , mate r ial.., tor r e ligious ceremonies and fa c tllties. 

l.o ng hatr is all <•w e d if it is a r e ligious custom and If pris o ner 

l s a s incere adh e r t.:• nl. It prohibit s penal It i es an ct 

dis c rimination again s t Nativ0 Amer J(.;an Prlsorll.' rS. It provid es 

for t h .. ~ PI'Oihlllgat l ou or t·egulat t ons to implemt:"nt t hr· /\c·t This 

s'·'" llo11 tri~·s to bring rnor·e l'<Juity fur Nativ P Am,·ricau r.- ll~Jon s 
279 

6 

In the prisons with the Judeo-Christlan faiths. 

(4) Religious Use of Eagles & Other Animals & Plants - This 

section deals with existing laws and processes. It recognizes 

and acknowledges Native American religious uses of these things. 

It authorizes the develoment of a plan to Insure the prompt 

disbursement of Eagles or parts for religious use In the existing 

application process. It allows the allocation of sufficient 

numbers of Eagles to meet the need. It allows for simplifying 

and shortening the cumbersome application process. It allows for 

the creation of regional advisory councils to reform the current system for disbursement If needed. It also recognizes and 

allows for tribal law If there Is In place tribal laws to deal 

with disbursement, (or a perlllt process), of Eagles on tribal 

lands. 

(5) restoration of the "compelling state Interest test" as the 

legal standard for protecting Native religious freedom which was thrown out by the Supreme Court In the Smith decision, the well 

known Peyote case mentioned above. -----

V. CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS 

Native American right to worship and the associated legal 

battles to gain that right, have long been recognized In the 

mainstream legal community as the miner ' s canary on lssucs of 

Importance to all Americans of all faiths and their religious 

freedoms within the context and protections of their own Constitution and Bill of Rights. Until significant right to 

worship protections are put Into place for the most "despised 

minority" for a start with passage and support of S. 1021 and 

other legislation like It, then the Ins titutionalized religious 

persecution will continue. 

Even with the passage of remedial legislation, history tells us that Native Americans will continue to have to fight to protect 

and preserve their religious traditions . But, at least wllh the 

passage of this and other similar legislation, we will see the 

significant beginnings of equal parity for Native Ameri c an 

religions with other maJor and minor religions of the world. 

Therefore , l urge the U. S . House of Representatives through the 

Com1nlttee on Natural Resources to support the Native American 

Free Exercise of Religion Act, (S. 1021) or Introduce similar 

legislation. This will be a significant step toward bringing some long denied equality to Native American right to worship. 
Oklahoma City 

Area Office 

Funding 

280 

For the past four years, the Inter· Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes has prepared a detailed 

study on the funding levels of all of the area offices of 

the Indian Health Service. Those studies have consis· 

tently revealed that the Oklahoma City Area Office is 

the lowest-funded of all of the IHS area offices on a 

per capita analysis. Despite the fact that Oklahoma 

has the largest single concentration of Indian popula· 

tion of all the states, it continues to receive some of 

the lowest funding for some of the most basic of health 

programs. 

Although some improvement in funding of the 

Oklahoma City Area Office has been seen, it is incom· 

prehensible that this office, which provides services to 

the IHS" largest user population, consistently receives 

the lowest level of per capita funding for medical and 

health services programs. 

Funding for IHS area offices is currently allocated by the IHS based upon a modified resource 

allocation methodology which relies upon historical 

funding for each of those areas. This method simply 

does not reflect the true need for the area offices. 

The Oklahoma City Area Office, which has the 

highest user population of all the IHS area offices, 

receives the lQwest per capita funding in all program 

funding, with the exception of dental programs. The 

Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes has 

repeatedly demonstrated the disparity of funding 

among all the area offices, yet Oklahoma still lags far 

behind the other areas. 

1 
281 

Indian Health Service 

Funding in Oklahoma: 

1992 Update 

Presented by The 

Inter-Tribal Council of the 

Five Civilized Tribes 

March, 1992 

Prepared by the 

Chickasaw Nation 

Office of Inter-Governmental Affairs 
282 

Indian Health Service Funding in Oklahoma: 1991 Update 

In recent years, tribal governments in Oklahoma have concentrated their united 

efforts to focus congressional attention on the inequity of funding for the Indian Health 

Service. In 1988, with 23% of the total Indian population of the United States living inside 

Oklahoma, the Oklahoma City Area Office of the Indian Health Service received only 11% 

of the total IHS budget. Although some improvement has been seen, inadequate and 

inequitable funding remains the number one problem in providing decent, safe health care 

to the more than one-quarter million Indian people who reside in Oklahoma. This report 

updates the figures for IHS funding in Oklahoma in relation to IHS funding in other area 

offices, with the utilization of figures for fiscal year 1990. An analysis is drawn throughout 

this booklet which contrasts the IHS funding levels of 1989 and 1990. 

Table of Contents 

Tables and Graphs 

Graph 1-1 ............................................................................ , ................................... Page2 

Table 1-1 ............................ .................................................................................... Page2 

Graph 1-2 ....................... ................................................................. ........................ Page 3 

Table 1-2 ................................................................................................................ Page 3 

Graph 1-3 ............................. ................................................................................... Page 5 

Table 1-3 ................................................................................................................ Page 5 

Graph 1-4 .......................................... ............ ~ ......................................................... Page 7 

Table 1-4 ................................................................................................................. Page 7 

Graph 1-5 ................................................................................................................ Page9 

Graph 1-6 .................................................. .............................................................. Page 9 

Graph 1-7 ............................................................................................................... Page 10 

Table 1-5 ................................................................................................................ Page 11 

Table of Contents 

Narratives 

Budget Increases: 1989 Compared to 1990 ........................................................ .. Page 1 

Oklahoma Still Ranks Last in Per Capita Expenditures ........................................... Page 4 

Recurring Funds for the Oklahoma City Area Office Place Oklahoma 

in Last Place in Per Capita Expenditures ....................................................... Page 6 

Oklahoma Ranks Lowest in Two out of Three Individual 

Funding Categories ...................................................................................... Page 8 
283 

Budget Increases: 1989 compared to 1990 

Graph 1-1 shows the budgets, by area office, including the total budget for each 

area office and the recurring funds for each area office. Table 1-1 gives the total 

amounts and percentages of increase for each area office, and contrasts the 

recurring budget for fiscal year 1989 with the recurring budget for fiscal year 1990, 

also by area office. 

Although the Oklahoma City area showed an increase of 17.6% rn fiscal year 

1990, six other area offices showed larger percentages of increase. In the total 

amounts, the Oklahoma City Area Office ranks third in recurring budget funds. The 

user populations of the two area offices which receive more funding combined 

provide services to a population which is only about 30% larger than that served by 

the Oklahoma City Area Office-- yet their combined funding is nearly 2.4 times larger! 

Overall, the Oklahoma City Area Office contains 22.2% of the total population 

of the Indian Health Service's patient load in the entire United States (See Graph 1-

2 and Chart 1-2). In order to provide health care services to that percentage of 

population, the Oklahoma City Area Office receives only 12.7% of the total IHS 

budget. 

**The user populations of the two area offices which receive 

more funding combined provide services to a population 

which is only about 30% larger than that served by the 

Oklahoma City Area Office-- yet their combined funding is 

nearly 2.4 times larger! 

**The Oklahoma City Area Office contains 22.2% of the total 

IHS user population in the United States-- yet that area office 

receives only 12.7% of IHS funds! 
GRAPH 1-1 

PER CENT BUDGET INCREASE FY 90/FY 89 

TOTAL BUDGET AND RECURRING BUDGET (In Pwcent) 

~----------------------------------------------------, 

~~,if~ -;=<<· " ----------------------------------------------~ 

-- frm::t-+llll<• ---------------l I ,~ 

·~ 

+--

- - - 10f- rSf-

- '-

PO CA BE AK TU OK BI NV AL 

Jftl TOTAL 

D RECURRING 

JMa.H 

AREA FYII FYIOTOTAL PERCENT FYIO PERCENT 

RECUAAING BUDGET" INCREASE AECUARWG INCREASE 

BUDGET IIUt'GET 

PO. Portland $55.791 ,500 $75,800,000 35.9 w.-.1oo 20.6 

CA-Califomia 536.280.500 $49.204.800 35.6 $49,663,000 21 .0 

BE-Bomiaji $49,176,900 $55.671 ,800 31.3 $51.210,100 16.8 

A fl. Abo<_, $84.216,900 $109.258.400 29.7 $101,87V.300 21.0 

NA·Nashvile $37,528,500 $48,412,300 29.0 $84,5541,800 18.7 

PH-Phoenix $94,051 ,300 $121.084,900 28.7 $108,718,700 15.8 

AK·Aiasko $135,098.000 $171 .474,000 28.9 $1511,488.700 18.1 

TU-Tucson s 18,588.200 $23,499,400 28.6 $2:),758.100 11 .8 

OK·Oida. City $107,117,000 $134.622.100 25.7 $125,971,100 17.8 

BI·Billings $58,098,300 $70,097,000 20.7 sas.m.aoo 13.2 

NV· Navato $119,729.500 $144,231 ,300 20.5 $135,071.000 12.8 

AL-Aibuquorquo $57,824,700 $89,441 ,900 20.1 1$4,517,500 11.8 

'FY 90 Totol Budgot lncludos Bolli lila R«:urring lind Non-Roa.rring lludgol 

SOURCE: Budget Roview Boo1<. o-Tibor. 1990. Tabla 6, Divi- of RaiOU'CO ~ IHS, - · MD 

2 
0.24 

0.22 ~ 

0.20 

0.18 - 0.16 ,---

0.14 - 0.12 - 0.10 - 0.08 i-- 1-

0.06 i-- 1-

0.04 .._ f--

0.02 r- t--

0.00 

OK NV AB 

ANa 

OK.Okla. City 

NV·Navajo 

AB·Aberdeon 

PH-Phoenix 

AK·Aiaaka 

AL·At>uquorquo 

PO·PO<tland 

BI·Billingl 

BE-Bemidji 

CA·Califomia 

NA·Nulwillo 

TU-Tucaon 

TOTAL 

285 

GRAPH 1-2 

IHS INPATIENT/OUTPATIENT USER 

Population by Am, FY 1 IMIO, by Pen:ent 

r-- ~ 

- f--

- f-- ~,.-r- ~ 

- f-- ~ 1- r- -

- f-- 1- 1- i-- -

,..- _r--

- ru-nPH AK AL PO Bl BE CA NA TU 

NUMBER OF ACTIVE USERS BY AREA, FY 110 

FY 1880 PerC.m 

224,579 22.2 

197,171 19.5 

97.094 9.6 

95,280 9.4 

92,930 9.2 

67,453 6.7 63,301 6.3 

53,949 5.3 

51 ,684 5.1 

45,693 4.5 

31 ,087 3.1 

17,966 1.6 

1,036,187 

Source: FY 89 User, Adjusted by IHS, Rockvillo, MD, lor Health Service Priority System (HSPS) 

Oklahoma: The Largest User Population of IHS Services 

3 
286 

Oklahoma Still Ranks Last in Per Capita Expenditures 

Graph 1-3 shows that the Oklahoma City Area Office, which provides IHS 

services through clinics, hospitals and contract health services to more Indian people 

than any other area office, continues to receive funding which gives itthe lowest level 

of per capita expenditures. According to the figures provided in Table 1-3, those 

expenditures ofthe Oklahoma City Area Office, on a per capita basis, are not only the 

lowest of any area office, they are $348.35 /essthan the national average of all the 

area offices for per capita expenditures. This means that the per capita expenditures 

in the Oklahoma City Area are only 46.8% of the national average. 

The Alaska Area Office, which has the highest per capita expenditures of all 

the area offices ($1 ,568. 73), has total funding which exceeds the Oklahoma City Area 

Office's funding by nearly $39 million-- yet they provide services to 131 ,649 fewer 

people! Just to bring per capita expenditures up to the national average in the 

Oklahoma City Area Office will require an additional $78,232,094 each fiscal year. 

"·Per capita expenditures of the Oklahoma City Area Office 

are $348.35/ess than the national average. 

""Per capita expenditures in the Oklahoma City Area are only 

46.8% of the national average. 

OKLAHOMA CONTINUES TO RANK DEAD LAST 

IN PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES 

FOR HOSPITALS, CLINICS AND CONTRACT 

HEALTH SERVICES 

4 
1.6 

1.5 

1.4 

1.3 

12 

1.1 

1.0 

0.9 

0.8 r0.7 

0.6 ..- 0.5 '--- 1-- .--

0.4 f--- 1--

0.3 f--- 1--

02 ~ f0.1 ~ f0.0 

OK NV AB 

AtOK·Okla. City 

NV·Nav.;o 

AL·Aibuquorquo 

CA·Celifomia 

BE-Bemidji 

PO.Por11ond 

AB-AbordMn 

TU·Tucson 

PH· PhoeniX 

BI·BIIIIngs 

NA·Nuhvil!. 

AK·Aiaska 

TOTAL 

287 

GRAPH 1-4 

PER CAPITA FUNDING, FY 90 

Hospital and Clinics!CHS Recurring (In thou .. nds} 

r-

- r-1---r-1--- ~ - '----- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- ~ '--

1-- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- f-- 1--

1-- 1--- ~ 1--- 1--- ~ '--

I-- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- ~ fI-- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- ~ f1-- 1-- 1-- 1--- 1-- f-- 1--

I-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- f--- fPH AK AL PO Bl BE 

IHS AREAS 

~ 

NuMOerof Totol 

Actlv•U•.,. Hoepltol& 

1110 CUnlcMdCHS 

(R-n1ng) 

224,579 $146,586,427 

197,171 $139.963,786 

67,453 $68,072,690 

45,693 $50,791 ,469 

51 ,684 $54,009,102 

63,301 $71,962,342 

97,094 $100,804,556 

17,966 $19,552,292 

95,280 $110,880,995 

53,949 $63,845,469 

31 .087 $45,174,512 

92,930 $178,6&3,701 

1,038,187 $811 ,970,800 

5 

f-

.- ff--- ff-- 1--

f-- 1--

f-- 1--

f-- 1--

~ 1--

~ ff-- 1--

f--- fCA NA TU 

Capito ""' 

$4562 5 

$557.28 

$764.32 

$788.66 

$805.19 

$821.03 

$834.56 

Si0824 

$944.79 

$980.45 

$1,204.54 

$1 ,514.47 

$782.10 
288 

Recurring Funds for the Oklahoma City Area Office Place 

Oklahoma in Last Place in Per Capita Expenditures 

Recurring funds, which are those funds budgeted to each area office on an 

annual basis, give the Oklahoma City Area Office last place in per capita expenditures. Graph 1-4 shows the rankings of all area offices in recurring funds. 

In Table 1-4, the per capita expenditures in this category place Oklahoma in 

last place, with per capita expenditures of $456.25. That is $325.85 less than the 

national average. To bring Oklahoma's recurring funding level just up to the national 

average will require an additional $73,179,067 per year. 

The Area Office with the highest per capita expenditures is again Alaska, with 

per capita expenditures of $1,514.47. Alaska's annual per capita expenditures 

amount to $1 ,058.22 per person more than Oklahoma's. Alaska, with only 8.9% of 

the Native American population in the United States, receives 17.3% of the IHS 

recurring funds. Oklahoma, with 21 .6% of the total Native American population, 

receives only 12.6% of the IHS' recurring funds. 

**Oklahoma, with 22.2% of the total U.S. population 

of Native Americans, receives only 

12.6% of IHS' recurring funds 

**Oklahoma's per capita expenditure of IHS recurring 

funds amounts to only 58.3% of the national average 

**More than $73 million will be needed just to 

bring Oklahoma up to the national average 
289 

Exhibit A 

PER CAPITA FUNDING, FY 92 

SetVices Appropriation Allocations (In Thousands of Dollars} 

1.8..--------------------------------l 

1.51----------------------------1 

0.6 

0.1 

OK NV CA BE PO A8 1U PH 

POPUlATION AND PER CAPITA FUNDING BY AREA, FY 110 

A,.. Number of Service a 

ActlveUMra Approprlllllona 

111110 AIIOC8IIona 

OK-Otda. City 246,750 $182,633,681 

NV·Navajo 226,754 171,448,242 

Al·At>uquorquo 74,064 94,21B,4V2 

CA-Califomia 58,011 66,343,100 

BE·B.mdji 58,854 69,055,323 

PO-Po~land 70,553 96,433,697 

AB·Aberdeen 103,615 128,472.n4 

TU-Tucaon 18,799 26,658,764 

PH-Phoenix 111,765 135,616,116 

BI·Billinga 59,324 81,529,393 

NA-Nuhvilte 34,167 56,822,615 

AK-Aiaska 87,225 204,765,436 

TOTAL t,143,286 $1 ,423,937,924 

AK 

Per 

Capita 

s 740.16 

$ 756.09 

$1 ,272.12 

$1 ,143.63 

$1,173.33 

$1,366.63 

$1,239.91 

$1 ,418.09 

$1,213.40 

$1 ,374.30 

$1 ,663.08 

$2,347.55 

$1,309.04 (Avg. 
290 

Oklahoma Ranks Lowest in 

Two out of Three Individual Funding Categories 

The Oklahoma City Area Office ranks lowest in funding, in comparison with all 

other I HS area offices, for alcoholism treatment and sanitation, and ranks third lowest 

in funding for the public health nursing program (See graphs 1-5, 1-6 and 1-7). Only 

the Alaska and California area offices receive less funding for the public health 

nursing program. All other areas receive higher levels of funding than the Oklahoma 

City Area for alcoholism and sanitation services, though the problems of alcoholism 

and sanitation are not demonstrably less in Oklahoma than in the other areas. 

Table 1-5 provides the total budget levels for sanitation, public health nursing 

and alcoholism for all area offices, as well as per capita expenditures for each. In 

sanitation spending, the Oklahoma City area rec~ives a little more than one-half of 

the national average. The same is true for public health nursing funding. Alcoholism 

funding for the Oklahoma City Area Office is about 2.5 times less than the national 

average . 

.. In all instances of funding for alcoholism, sanitation and 

public health nursing, Oklahoma receives funding 

which is far less than the national average 

**The Oklahoma City Area Office's funding for alcoholism 

is about 2.5 times less than the national average 

**Oklahoma ranks lowest in per capita expenditures 

for alcoholism and santlation services 

86-834 352 

8 
80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

00 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

08 

06 

04 

02 

00 

hft OK NV 

iliF 

291 

GRAPH 1-S 

PER CAPITA FUNDING, FY 91 

Alcohollam (Recurring) (In Dollara) 

- r-

- t--

I- -

-

r-_ -t-- - rr- - - f- - rt-- - f- r- - - f-

- - f- r- - - fH AK T~ At AI Bl sE 

GRAPH 1-6 

PER CAPITA FUNDING, FY 91 

PubUc Haafth Nuralng (Recurring) pn Dollara) 

-_ t-- - -

f- - -

1--- t-- - -

f-- f- - -

-- - 1--- t-- - - 1- - - 1--- t-- - - t-- - - f-- t-- - - t-- - - f-- f- - -

I- -

I- - -

r- I- -

r- I- -

r- - -

NA PO CA 

rr1---

;------ f--

1--- f--

1--- 1---

- f--

1--- -

f-- - t--- -

r- f--

1--- f--

CA AK OK BE NA PO NV TU AL AB Bl PH 
0 

45 

4 0 

5 

0 

5 

292 

GRAPH1·7 

PER CAPITA FUNDING, FY 91 

S.nbtlon (Recurring) (In Dol'-) 

- -r- r- ,- - o_r-_r--- r- - - - rsf-------- '---- - r- r- - - r0 ,--1- - - r- r- - - r5 r- 1-- - 1-- r- - - r00 

- -~ - 1- 1- r1- 1- r1- 1- rr- 1- rr- r- rOK NV AL AB PO CA 81 NA PH TU BE AK 

10 

0 

ISBN 0-16-046707-1 

90000 

9 801