[House Hearing, 106 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] H.R. 946, H.R. 2671, AND H.R. 4148 (YOUNG, R-AK)--TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT RELATING TO CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``TRIBAL CONTRACT SUPPORT COST TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 2000''. ======================================================================= OVERSIGHT HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 16, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC __________ Serial No. 106-95 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ house or Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 68-434 WASHINGTON : 2001 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JIM SAXTON, New Jersey EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Carolina Rico WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam CHRIS CANNON, Utah PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island KEVIN BRADY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana RICK HILL, Montana DONNA MC CHRISTESEN, Virgin BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Islands JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held May 16, 2000........................................ 1 Statement of Members: Barrett, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, Prepared Statement of................... 116 Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, Prepared Statement of................. 97 Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the State of California........................................ 66 Prepared Statement of.................................... 69 Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska.................................................. 1 Prepared Statement of.................................... 4 Statement of Witnesses: Allen, W. Ron, Vice President, National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC.................................... 51 Prepared Statement of.................................... 53 Archambeau, Ms. Madonna, Chairwoman, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty, South Dakota........................................ 85 Prepared Statement of.................................... 87 Denny, Mr. Arthur ``Butch'', Chairman, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska............................... 90 Prepared Statement of.................................... 92 Gover, Hon. Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC.................................... 8 Prepared Statement on H.R. 4148.......................... 10 Prepared Statement on H.R. 2671.......................... 83 Prepared Statement on H.R. 946........................... 105 Narcia, Richard, Lt. Governor, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona........................................... 43 Prepared Statement of.................................... 45 Sarris, Greg, Chairman, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Novato, California.............................. 72 Prepared Statement of.................................... 74 Smith, Hon. Chad, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma........................................ 36 Prepared Statement of.................................... 38 Trujillo, Dr. Michael H., Director, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland........................................ 15 Prepared Statement of.................................... 17 Williams, Orie, Executive Vice President, Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Bethel, Alaska......................... 27 Prepared Statement of Gene Peltola, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation............................................ 30 Additional material supplied: Briefing Paper, H.R. 946..................................... 100 Briefing Paper, H.R. 2671.................................... 101 Briefing Paper, H.R. 4148.................................... 102 Janklow, William, Prepared Statement of...................... 115 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians et al. Statement regarding impact of H.R. 4148.............................. 112 H.R. 946, H.R. 2671, AND, H.R. 4148 (YOUNG, R-AK) TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT RELATING TO CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``TRIBAL CONTRACT SUPPORT COST TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 2000''. ---------- TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000 House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. of I21The Committee met, pursuant to notice, in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (chairman of the Committee) presiding. The Chairman. Where is Mr. J.D. Hayworth? I ask unanimous consent that Congressman J.D. Hayworth be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the Committee during this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We're going to change the order of business today. We're going to take up --H.R. 4148. That's a prerogative of the chairman. I would suggest that the first panel, the Honorable Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Dr. Michael Trujillo, Director of the Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland, be seated at the panel. I would like to extend my welcome to all of my Alaskan constituents. I would especially like to thank everyone for their help in drafting H.R. 4148, a bill that makes technical amendments to the Contract Support Costs Provisions in the Indian Self-Determination Act. These amendments are long overdue. We held our first hearings on contract support costs on February 24, 1999, accepting testimony from tribes and the Administration. Additionally, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee requested a report from the General Accounting Office regarding contract support costs and to provide Congress with alternatives to the existing problems. On August 3, 1999, we held a hearing to accept testimony from the Administration, the National Congress American Indians, and their work with the National Policy Work Group on contract support costs, and from the General Accounting Office on their final report to Congress and what alternatives that they recommend with regard to the contract support costs shortfalls. H.R. 4148 is a result of the National Congress of American Indians National Policy Work Group and the Administration's efforts to resolve contract support costs problems. This is our first hearing on the bill, and I would like to state my many thanks to all the tribes for all their input and patience on this important issue. On a sideline, may I suggest this has been a battle we have been fighting for the last six years. This Committee thinks it's very unfortunate that we can't reach an agreement on how these contract support costs can be established in a stabilized manner (without all the fluctuation which has occured in the present system). I think it's very unfortunate that many of our tribes and many of our villages do not know for sure that they're going to receive any of the moneys, which were guaranteed under the negotiated contracts. So, I hope this bill, H.R. 4148, will solve some of these problems. I realize there is some opposition to the bill, but I hope those that are opposed to it would reconsider and deeply search their souls. I understand this is a problem and I'd like to see it resolved before we adjourn this session. I will recognize the ranking member, Mr. Kildee, for an opening statement. Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to sit up here with Mr. J.D. Hayworth. J.D. and I are Co-Chairs of the Native American Caucus. We jokingly say sometimes when we see our votes the same up there, it must be an Indian bill, because that's one thing that J.D. and I always agree on. We have other agreements, too. Mr. Chairman, this hearing will provide us an opportunity to again examine contract support costs. Last year, this Committee held two hearings on this issue. The GAO released its report last summer, offering four alternatives for funding contract support costs, and the National Congress of American Indians also released its report last year, making several recommendations. Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, you introduced H.R. 4148, that would, among other things, make contract support costs funding an entitlement. While I'm in support of this measure, I hope that as the bill moves forward, you will continue to work with me to address the concerns raised by the administration regarding this bill, so we can get this bill signed into law. I look forward to hearing today's testimony and I thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the introduction of this bill, Mr. Hayworth, and for this hearing today. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Hayworth? Mr. Hayworth. Chairman Young, let me begin by saying how honored I am that you've asked me to participate in this hearing today on this legislation. I welcome my friend from Michigan, Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, and others on the other side of the aisle, because this is an issue that transcends partisan politics. I think we are all deeply concerned about the contract support costs funding issue and I strongly believe we need to work toward a sustainable solution that ensures the Federal Government will meet its legal obligation to tribes to help them carry out the management of their health and social services programs. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with you on the development of H.R. 4148. This legislation has been a cooperative effort, with input from many tribes and tribal organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians National Policy Work Group. H.R. 4148 is, also, the result of the Administration's efforts to resolve contract support costs problems and includes recommendations from the Government Accounting Office. I'd like to thank all of the individuals, who will testify before the Committee today and I'd like to extend a special welcome to Lt. Governor Richard P. Narcia and Franklin P. Jackson of the Gila River Indian Community, located in my district back in Arizona. Lt. Governor Narcia will provide an important example of the critical need for full contract support costs funding and the special challenges that all tribes are facing, as they attempt to operate effective tribal programs responsive to their respective community needs. I pledge my continued commitment to working toward a single, consistent Federal policy that applies to all self- determination contracts and self-governance compacts. The end result must provide stability and predictability, so tribes can move forward to successfully implement their tribal programs and the self-determination policy. I believe that H.R. 4148 is a good starting point. I look forward to receiving additional comments today on this legislation from tribal representatives, the Committee, and the Administration, as we work toward enactment of this important bill. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the other members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here. [The prepared statement of Hon. Don Young follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.004 The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Kevin Gover, you're the first witness. STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC.; AND DR. MICHAEL H. TRUJILLO, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Mr. Gover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to appear before the Committee. We thank the Committee and the chair, in specific, for taking on this issue. I know that the chair was reluctant to enter into the Indian Self-Determination Act, at this time, and, nevertheless, we do think that some clarifications are necessary, in order to finally address this issue of contract support. Let me lay out the background for our testimony and then get into some of the specifics. The administration does support the goal of full funding of contract support costs for Indian tribes and has proposed increases in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget for contract support. We, also, believe that the effort to reach full funding should be accompanied by timely reporting and auditing of the use of these contract support costs, as required of other Federal agencies. We understand that the contract support issue is one of the primary impediments to the full implementation of the Self-Determination Act. The idea behind the Act is to systematically move the Bureau of Indian Affairs out of positions of making decisions under the delivery of services to Indian communities; invest those decisions in tribal governments. We support that proposition and we believe that the resolution of this issue will assist in that process. We do have several concerns regarding H.R. 4148. We think most of them are issues that can be worked through. We do have to point out our concern that here we are talking about clearly wanting to spend more money in Indian country through BIA and through IHS and through these tribal contracting procedures. At the same time, the Congress has under consideration a budget resolution that doesn't seem to leave much room for the sort of expansion of these programs that we're hoping for. In my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we've identified some specific concerns and they just demonstrate how tricky this area is and how we can easily impose unintended consequences when we're not careful with the kind of language that is used. We would like to work with the Committee to address the concerns that we identify in the legislation. I don't think that they really need to be belabored here. But, we do encourage the Committee to continue addressing this issue, to work with us and with the tribes, to try to find a solution to the problem. We have had a great deal of conversation within the administration concerning the specific provisions of this bill and, in particular, the issue of moving contract support costs to the mandatory side of the budget. The current status of those discussions is that we are prepared to say that were the Congress to identify offsets satisfactory to the administration, that we would not oppose that proposition. That is the result of a great deal of deliberation and debate, within the administration, but I feel safe in saying that that's where we are at this point. We would like to work with the Committee to identify those offsets and address the specifics of how we go about calculating these contract support costs. If we can resolve this matter, put the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Services (IHS) on a smoother trail toward understanding what our contract support obligations are and how they're going to be funded, then the tribes will have the kind of security and the annual funding that they really require to do meaningful planning for the delivery of services. Mr. Chairman, that is my testimony this morning. As I say, we've submitted some more specific comments for the record, to indicate some of the complications that we've identified in the bill. We do think those complications can be worked out and look forward to working with the Committee on trying to resolve these issues. [The prepared statement of Kevin Gover follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.009 The Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dr. Trujillo? STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. TRUJILLO Dr. Trujillo. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee members. Today with me, in case there are any specific questions, are Mr. Michael Lincoln, Deputy Director of the Indian Health Service, and Mr. Douglas Black, the Director of our Tribal Affairs Program. The Indian Health Service has testified twice previously this session of Congress on the importance of contract support costs, on the promotion of strong stable tribal governments and the provisions, certainly, of quality costs health care. I come to you today in support of your continued efforts to address the contract support costs issues. This bill before us contains provisions that the Indian Health Service supports. However, there are, also, other provisions within the bill that are of concern to the Indian Health Service and we would be very willing to work with you, the Committee members, tribal leadership, to address our areas of concern. When I last testified before this Committee, I spoke about our efforts to work with tribal governments, to develop a revised policy to allocate contract support costs in Fiscal Year 2000. In January of this year, I adopted a revised policy, which now governs the administration in allocation of the contract support costs for the Indian Health Service. That policy was developed as a result of very extensive tribal consultation and collaboration to date, regarding contract support costs, and has received the formal endorsements of major national Indian organizations and tribal governments. The revised policy establishes allocation procedures that are intended, over a period of time, to reduce the disparity of contract support costs funding among tribes in our system without reducing contract support costs funding for tribes that are still underfunded. The allocation procedures were developed to address the present environment, in which available contract support costs appropriated are insufficient to fund the total contract support costs need. This bill we are discussing today contains provisions that legislate the full funding of contract support costs. At the crux of the contract support costs dilemma and controversy are provisions in the Indian Self-Determination Act that seemingly are in conflict with each other. One law directs the Secretary to fund the full amount of need for such costs; elsewhere, the Act provides that contract funding is subject to the availability of appropriations. As a result, the Indian Health Service continues to be involved in litigation over contract support costs issues that are rooted in this confusion. The provisions of H.R. 4148 that require the full funding of contract support costs would address and essentially end the confusion over contract support costs by amending the Act, fully funding these costs. Although I have been a strong advocate for increased contract support costs funding throughout my tenure as the Director of the Indian Health Service, I am very concerned about this provision. This bill does not specify the source of funding that will be used to fully address the contract support costs and I would be opposed to funding for contract support costs that comes from any other existing or future Indian Health Service appropriations for the health care programs and services and which supersede other critical priorities for budget increase for all Indian Health Service-funded health programs, especially for those tribes who chose not to assume direct management of their health care programs. I do believe that there are provisions in the bill worthy of consideration, including provisions to enlarge the current self-determination proposal review period from 90 to 180 days and one that reconstitutes--reinstates congressional reporting requirements, to assist you in your future consideration of contract support costs issues. There are, also, provisions of the bill that either the Indian Health Service, the Department, and the administration cannot support, and others would require further modification and review before they are supported. A discussion of these provisions is contained in my written formal statement that was submitted earlier. In closing, I would, again, like to express my support for contract support costs and the activities of this particular committee. I continue to be of the opinion, as I have testified previously, that carefully drafted regulations governing contract support costs are still desirable and that the development of such regulations can be best accomplished through the negotiated rulemaking process. The Indian Health Service would welcome the opportunity to join with tribes, other Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Inspector General, in such a process, if authorized by Congress. I would close by emphasizing that the Indian Health Service is committed to upholding, promoting, and strengthening principles of the Self-Determination Act, the empowerment of tribal governments, and the government to government relationship that exist between Indian nations and this country. Thank you for this opportunity. [The prepared statement of Michael Trujillo follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.016 The Chairman. I thank both of you. I'm somewhat pleased with your testimony and somewhat discouraged, because this has been a problem for about 6 years or longer. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I hope we can reach a solution. Because if I remember right, both you, Mr. Secretary, and you, Dr. Trujillo, that this is the third time that you've appeared before this Committee and said you supported it. We have a bill that does that and now we have opposition from your Administration. Although, Mr. Secretary, I think if I understood you correctly, you would support it, if we find the offsets. Is that correct? [No response.] The Chairman. I know who is looking over your shoulder and I know who is in this room. You answer freely, because I will protect you, believe me. Mr. Gover. I'm trying to pick my words carefully. What I don't want to be saying is we're putting the burden on you to find the offsets. I think the Administration shares that burden. All we mean to say, at this point, is that the offsets should be satisfactory to both Congress and the Administration and we will need to work with you, to try to figure out what that is. The point of my testimony was not just to slough the burden off onto the Committee and onto the Congress. The Chairman. Well, I'm saying that's the biggest hold up, as far as you're concerned, in the bill. The Doctor seems to have some other problems. But, again, I go back to: if we don't correct this now, it will always be an uncertainty for tribal health care, because we don't know if they've received enough funds or not. Mr. Gover. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. OK. You know, again, as long as we have that understanding. Are you communicating with the tribes all the time and trying to find the solution? Is that occurring? Mr. Gover. We have put a lot of effort into working with the tribes on this issue. I think it's fair to say IHS has put even more effort into working with the tribes on this issue. I believe that this bill represents a solid step forward and that it would bridge a lot of the problem between our position and the tribes. Obviously, we would be much more open in adding additional elements of costs to our contract support formulas, if we knew that the money was going to be there. What we don't want to do is make agreements with the tribes, as to what are the appropriate elements of contract support, knowing full well that they are not likely to be funded, because that's just a broken promise to the tribes. I've been holding the line in the discussions with the tribes, saying, look, let's not pile on more costs, until we have some understanding of how they're going to be paid for. If the Congress and the Administration agreed on a solution as to the funding of contract support costs, I believe it becomes a much easier exercise to agree on what the elements of contract support costs should be. The Chairman. Offsets do not have to come out--the Doctor said, out of the existing health services. Offsets can come out from anywhere within the budget. Is that your understanding? Mr. Gover. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. OK. For instance, we have--I'm going to pick on the Administration, The Administration now wants to get some of the funding out of the tobacco settlement and spend it for other purposes. That tobacco settlement could be used for contract support costs (as an offiset). Would that be a correct interpretation? Mr. Gover. I can't speak for the Administration, as to whether or not to encourage the Committee to look to the tobacco settlement money for an appropriate offset. But, yes, it's my understanding that an offset could come from any part of the Federal budget. The Chairman. This is ignorance on my part, would we have to find an offset every year or is there any way, again, that we can provide stability in the funding? Because once we passed the Self-Determination Act, we tried to make sure that there was the money available, and we haven't done that. And that uncertainty has caused shortfall problems. Is there any way we can write this bill, so that there isn't uncertainty? Mr. Gover. I believe so, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we could identify an offset that would continue just the same as this increase in spending would be continuing over some number of years. The Chairman. My time is about up. The gentleman from California? Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the panel for their testimony and I agree with the dialogue that you just had, that we've got to come up with the offsets. I think your bill does it right. I think we should just recognize that these are the costs and we've got to take them out of the ongoing general revenues of the government, instead of believing that we're somehow going to trade this off between law enforcement and Indian health, or other services that we already know are inadequately funded. This is part of the price of self-determination. The program is working and I think your legislation speaks to it quite correctly. And if saying that we've got to look for offsets just is another way to keep postponing this year after year, then we're obviously just robbing already inadequate sources. So, that won't work. And so I think, at some point, we have to sit down with the Administration and make a decision about that, because that holds everybody in abeyance, but it doesn't solve the problem. And there clearly are sufficient revenues to deal with the contract costs. I want to thank you, very much, and I appreciate the problem that's being presented by the position of the Administration here, but I think we've got to get on and solve this issue. As you have pointed out, we have now punted three years in a row on this and that's not helping anyone. The Chairman. Mr. Hayworth? Mr. Hayworth. I just want to thank both the chairman, and the ranking member and these two gentlemen for their testimony. I think we have the context where at long last we need to act. And while I think we've documented the problem and they've outlined their concerns, I would concur with both the chairman and the ranking member, it's time to get this done. The Chairman. Mr. Kildee? Mr. Kildee. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we have to work together to identify those offsets and I think they have to be in the whole Federal Government, because I don't know of any Indian program that we haven't been penny pinching in my 24 years here in the Congress. So, I hate to take money from another Indian program for this very good thing here, because we've been penny pinching for so many years. So, I think it's very important that we sit down, not delay, get on immediately and identify some offsets from other areas of government, not Indian programs, so we can do this. And I think that should be our top priority, because the effects of not providing full funding for contract support costs is really a terrible defect. I think--this is more than just a legal matter. I think it's a moral matter. I think J.D. Hayworth and I agree upon, this is something very--a moral matter, that we really should be fully funding this and make this an entitlement, find some offsets. But, I think that we should not wait until next month. We should start working today or tomorrow on identifying those offsets and not from other areas where we are already underfunding Indian programs. I've been in Congress for 24 years and I have yet to see where, when I've traveled throughout the country or looked at the books, that we're over funding our responsibilities in our sovereign-to-sovereign relationship and our trust responsibilities to the Indians. So, Kevin and Dr. Trujillo, we look forward to working with you starting today, to try to identify those offsets. And I think that we have, I think, a very important bill here. We can move forward in our support. I yield back the balance of my time. The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland? Mr. Gilchrest. No questions, at this time, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. All right. I've got a great offset. I know this is going to stir the pot up, but the Senate is considering the pullout of Kosovo. We're spending approximately 20 times the budgets for Indian Health in that activity alone. And once they pull out, maybe we can apply that money for something that helps us in the great United States of America. I want to thank the panel. We'll be in communications. I was very kind to you today, because I heard what was being said behind the words that were being said, that we want to work together. And I will be talking to OMB to find out what their problem is, because this is an issue and a commitment that should have been met a long time ago. If we believe in the Self-Determination, and Congress said we did, that's not up to the Administration not to fully fund programs. It's up to us to make sure that Self-Determination is fully funded, especially the contracting part of it. So, I do thank both of you and we will be in communication with you. And you are excused for this panel. I think one of you is up for the next bill. Kevin, I think you are. The next panel, H.R. 4148, the next panel: Mr. Orie Williams, Executive Vice President, Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Bethel, Alaska; the Honorable Chad Smith, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma; Mr. Richard Narcia, Lt. Governor, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona; and Mr. W. Ron Allen, Vice President, National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC. Mr. Williams? Turn your mike on. There you go. STATEMENTS OF ORIE WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, YUKON KUSKOKWIM HEALTH CORPORATION, BETHEL, ALASKA; HONORABLE CHAD SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION, TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA; RICHARD NARCIA, LT. GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, SACATON, ARIZONA; W. RON ALLEN, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, WASHINGTON, DC STATEMENT OF ORIE WILLIAMS Mr. Williams. For the record, my name is Orie Williams and I'm the Executive Vice President of the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on H.R. 4148. I would like to begin my testimony by putting H.R. 4148 into perspective, our perspective. The Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation serves as a consolidated and only health care provider for 25,000 people in 58 Federally-recognized Alaskan native villages. It's spread across 85,000 square miles of roadless area the size of the State of South Dakota. Poor health and a subsistence lifestyle have led some of the compared conditions in many of our villages to those facing Third World nations. Our people live on the most over regulated lands in the nation. Mr. Chairman, that is no exaggeration. Besides the subsistence--besides subsistence, the largest economy in the region is government, including our YKHC health system. There is no viable commercial fishing, forest, or other resource development industry that can offset the statistics. The unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent and most of our village homes still have a six gallon plastic bucket for a toilet. That's not all. Our villages post neonatal mortality is more than double the average U.S. rate. Death by suicide is four times the national rate. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol affect are rampant. And despite recent increases in congressional appropriations, the lack of adequate sewer and water systems still leave over many of our communities victims of every known infectious disease. What have we done to meet some of these challenges? Our tribal government is working together under the Indian Self- Determination Act. I've replaced the Indian Health Service and directly administer 47 village clinics; one mid level sub regional clinic, with two more under construction; a 51 bed hospital; and over 11,000 employees. Since taking over daily operation of the Indian Health Service system, we have witnessed tremendous improvements in the delivery of health care. But, the contracts support shortfall we have faced each year, over $2.3 million each year, has consistently crippled our ability to do more. As our written testimony details, the shortfall has meant deficiencies in our accounting department, our medical coding and billing department, and our hospital facilities maintenance programs. The shortfall has, also, required us to transfer funds away from key programs and has impaired our ability to enhance our substance abuse and mental health services, our home elder care, and our health prevention education programs to many of our villages. To those unfamiliar with health care conditions in rural Alaska, our contract support costs deficit is just a number. But for us working out there in the trenches, it is having a corrosive impact on the quality of our health care system and may, in fact, lead to layoffs and salary reductions. Mr. Chairman, for nearly 20 years, the Administration and Congressional Committees have all acknowledged the grave impact caused by contract support costs shortfalls. For nearly 20 years, the contract support costs system has been studied and restudied and restudied. The last time, read the GAO's June 1999 report. Never until H.R. 4148 have we seen a solution that fully and completely addresses the problem, so that there are no more shortfalls and no more court cases and we can get on with the process of tribal self-determination without reducing the very government programs we are charged to carry out. Contract support shortfall creates--cheats the tribes and punishes our people. It's not how the country deals with other government contractors, be it General Electric or Boeing, and it's not the way the country should deal with Indian tribes. Just yesterday an article in the Wall Street Journal reported a GAO study that confirmed that the U.S. Congress spent $2.2 billion to subsidize sugar growers in America. Isn't it ironic that in the same--that is the same amount spent for all of Indian health care in America. It is ironic, also, that the subsidy--the historical subsidy of the tobacco industry, greater than all of the resources spent on the health care of the Americans worse people, are industries, whose products caused some of the greatest health risk to Native American, and probably up to 30 percent of our costs. Since my time is short, I respectfully refer the Committee to my written testimony for comments on the balance of the bill. I would note, however, that the consolidation initiative proposed in Section 2 is a novel and innovative new way to deal with contract support costs issues. The consolidation initiative answers those, who are concerned that somehow tribes have insufficient incentives to maximize the efficiency and the operation of their health programs. While we find such criticisms demeaning, we recognize that this option, first put forward by the General Accounting Office, does provide a better way for Congress to predict contract support costs requirements from one year to the next. Mr. Chairman, many years ago, Congress failed--failed to fully fund contract support costs, the single most serious problem with implementation of the Indian Self-Determination Act. H.R. 4148 will at long last firmly and finally solve that problem. Nationally, the cost of the bill is negligible. For us in the trenches on Indian reservations in Alaskan native villages, the financial stability we will regain will translate in desperately needed care for American Indian and Alaska native people. They are far beyond the reach of our nation's typical health care system. I praise the chairman and Congressman Hayworth and others for introducing this legislation; Congressman Miller and other members of the Native American Caucus for their continued support for self-determination and self-governance. I respectfully urge that the Committee move this bill forward as quickly as possible, so that it can be enacted this year. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would like to close my testimony with the request for the Committee to observe a moment of silence for one of the nation's greatest Indian leaders, Mr. Joe De La Cruz, a champion in tribal rights of the Indian Self-Determination Act throughout his life, even up to the day he died of a major heart attack on April 16th, on the way to a national Indian Health Service tribal conference. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Orie Williams follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.021 The Chairman. Without objection, a moment of silence. [Moment of silence.] The Chairman. Thank you and I can tell you that Mr. De La Cruz was one of my favorite people who testified before this Committee and his was an unfortunate death. We never know why God reaches down and takes us. I'm going to use my discretion here, as I do have another appointment, I'm going to have Mr. Gilchrest take over the hearing. But before I do, I want to ask Orie two questions. One is you mention the shortfall of $2.5 million. Is that recoverable money or is that what you're out of pocket? Is there any way you can negotiate that? Mr. Williams. That has been the shortfall in our contract. For several years, we filed the claim for the amounts of the shortfall in 1991 and 1994. And despite the desperate telephonic calls and recordings--recording our annual funding agreement, I've never received any written decision from the Indian Health Service in over four years. The Chairman. Have there been lawsuits filed by the tribes over this problem? Mr. Williams. No, we've tried to resolve it without legal action, at this point. The Chairman. OK. No. 2 is you mentioned two things, one sugar and one, I believe, was tobacco. Sugar, you say, is subsidized at 2.--how many billion? Mr. Williams. The GAO report, if you can believe everything you read, in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, state that last year $2.2 billion, the total Indian Health Service budget; and this year, so far, $1.6 billion, with a request from the--it's crazy that OMB would oppose any health service contract support. But, then, the Administration asked for another $350 million to subsidize a product, with all due respect to the great farmers, for 544 tribes and two and a half million Indians, and they can fund a subsidy such as this. It's killing our people, and still cheat and rob and treat the first Americans the way they do for the third of the money that's required for health care. The Chairman. I think that's a good point. I love sugar myself, but it is probably the biggest villain we have, I know, in Alaskan villages, between soda water and coke and--that's the drinking kind--and I guess candy, two of the--biggest, harmfulness consumption thing that they take now. It's close to alcohol or worse. Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, it glared at me, because I know if you stop the flights of the soft drinks, which the sugar is in, to our villages, you'd have community in relapse. They've been without good water for 30 and 40 years and they've substituted--the young generation has substituted good drinking water, which Americans take for granted, with soft drinks. That's a fact. The Chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Gilchrest, would you take over for me, please? [Pause.] Mr. Gilchrest [presiding]. The chair now recognizes Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OF CHAD SMITH Mr. Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chad Smith. I am Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. I'm honored to have this opportunity to present the Cherokee Nation's view on contract support costs today. The Cherokee Nation is comprised of over 230,000 tribal members, nearly half of which live within our 7,000 mile jurisdictional area in northeastern Oklahoma. We are one of the second largest tribes in the country and we have 22 treaties with the Federal Government and Great Britain. Twenty-five years ago, we began the gradual process of contracting local programs to the BIA and IHS, in order to streamline, redesign, and enhance Federal services for people. And from our perspective, I can best convey the message by a story. Ruth Smith, Rufus Smith's wife, was a great basket maker in our rural community of Marble City, a vibrant, beautiful woman. She contracted diabetes. As all of us know, the Indians have the highest rate of incident of diabetes in this country. She came to town one day. The diagnosis was made. The next time she came to town, she had toes and one foot removed. The next time, she had toes and another foot removed. And every time she came to town thereafter, to Tahlequah, another index was removed, another part of a limb, her ankles, her calves, and then her whole legs. And the last time I saw her with her children, on a hot July day, they were taking her in and out of a backseat of a car, without legs. The next time for Ruth Smith, after dialysis, she passed away. In response, the Cherokee Nation developed some very aggressive diabetes programs through health care funding. We developed, in cooperation with the local rural hospital, a podiatry and orthopedic clinic. Last year, during my term, we had to reduce our health budget by $1.5 million. We had to cut the podiatry clinic. And now I face the recurring cries of our people, who come to me and say, we need the podiatry clinic. We need that orthopedic clinic. We're going back to the scenario, we'll see more Mrs. Smiths come to town less and less each time by incidents of diabetes. To complicate matters, we have two Indian hospitals within our territory. We operate six clinics. Each of those hospitals have recorded a million dollar deficit this year. Our population goes from clinic to clinic, from hospital to hospital. When they reduce their services, they come to our clinic. In fact, Indian hospitals reduced their pharmaceuticals by--they no longer issue the asthmatic inhalers. It cost them a dollar and a half each. That creates that market to come to our clinics and we have to deal with it. We're suffering, because of lack of contract. We have to ask the question, why does a private contractor, such as General Electric and Boeing, get their administrative and general costs paid, full indirect costs, full direct costs, such as unemployment and Worker's Comp, and we don't. We can assure the Committee and Congress that we don't pile on the costs when we run these programs. Each of these programs begin to suffer, because of the lack of funding. For example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs that we operate, we've taken a hit of $500,000 for each of the last 10 years, for accumulative amount of $5 million. In health service, we have been cut back $3.7 million, because of the lack of contract-- contract costs. My written testimony addresses several others, with respect to this excellent bill, including the way it addresses the barriers in our government indirect cost agreement, the need for a new OMB circular, the need to eliminate the conflict of interest presently and how IHS handles contract support costs issues. There is so much more that the Cherokee Nation and the government can do and there's so much more that we must do, to meet the critical health, education, economic and social needs of our citizens and other eligible Indian people in our area. We are pleased to carry out the Federal Government's trust programs. Pleased, because history shows that we have the capacity and capability to do a much better job than the Federal bureaucracy. But, our ability to administer these programs successfully maximize the delivery of these needed services to Indian people depends on having adequate contract support costs funding. This bill will go a long way for resolving a very serious problem in the self-determination, self- governance programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 4148. [The prepared statement of Chad Smith follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.026 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your testimony. We have a vote going on. I think instead of stopping the hearing to go vote, if it's all right with the members, if the gentleman from American Samoa can take the chair while we vote--we'll return after the vote. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I think they would rather talk to you, as the chairman, than to me. I would respectfully request that we'll wait until you return. Mr. Gilchrest. Then, we shall return. You all have a 15 minute break then. [Recess.] Mr. Gilchrest. The Committee will come to order. We appreciate your indulgence on our fascinating schedule here in the Nation's capital. And before we get started, I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Woolsey, if she wants to, to be allowed to sit on the dais and participate with the Committee during this hearing. You want to come up, Lynn, or you want to stay there? Ms. Woolsey. I'll stay here until I offer my testimony, if that's OK. Mr. Gilchrest. All right, that's fine. Our next witness is Lt. Governor Richard Narcia. STATEMENT OF RICHARD NARCIA Mr. Narcia. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Narcia. I'm Lt. Governor for the Gila River Indian Community. With me today is Franklin Jackson. Mr. Jackson is President of our Health Care Corporation. He's seated to my left. And, also, Ms. Lindsey Naas, who is, also, the counsel for our corporation. Our community is located in south central Arizona. We are located in the heart of Congressman J.D. Hayworth's district. We are pleased and honored to have him sitting with you on the dais today. He has been a dedicated and long-standing friend of our community and deeply committed to the interests of the Native Americans, not only in Arizona, but in the--throughout the nation. The community provides health care, law enforcement, irrigation system construction, and rehabilitation and other community services under self-determination contracts and self- governance agreements with the Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation. The issue of contract support funding is an issue of ongoing concern and importance to the success of our Federal programs. We are pleased to testify in support of H.R. 4148, which would make technical amendments to the contract support provisions in the Indian Self-Determination Act. Our Health Care Corporation's experience with contract support funding from the Indian Health Service demonstrates the failings of the existing contract support system. The community initially contracted with the IHS, to operate the hospital at Gila River in October 1995. For Fiscal Year 1996, 1997, 1998, the Health Care Corporation's contract support requests worked its way up the IHS waiting list or cue. In late 1998, we were expecting 100 percent funding for the Fiscal Year 1999 contract year; however, the IHS policy changed. While we generally supported the new policy, the Fiscal Year 1999 policy change resulted in a loss of approximately two million dollars in contract support funding for our Health Care Corporation. Of particular concern during this past year was the IHS policy decision not to reimburse our Health Care Corporation prior year pre-award and startup contract costs. This decision resulted in the community receiving 61 percent of IHS approved Fiscal Year 1999 requests, while most tribes were funded at 80 percent. This decision, also, resulted in our community and other similarly situated tribes being denied reimbursement of these one-time costs, while tribes before and after 1999 will receive reimbursement of these types of costs. With this background, I would like to briefly address several key issues addressed in H.R. 4148. As the Committee is aware, there is a 25-year history of inadequate funding of tribal government contract support costs. The community operates 14 BIA programs, two programs, public health and public works, with IHS, and recovers 85 to 90 percent of its indirect costs from the BIA and IHS. However, both BIA programs and the public health programs have accumulated over the years a significant amount of unrecovered indirect costs, which are absorbed by the community. H.R. 4148 would remedy this cycle. H.R. 4148 addresses several key issues that are necessary to ensure the sustainable success of any new contract support system, allowing for consolidation of adequately funded contract support costs, provides additional incentive for efficiently administering, and hopefully generating savings to reinvest in our health care and other programs. Providing for annual funding adjustments, based on medical inflation rates and the Consumer Price Index, recognizes the reality of keeping pace with the rising costs of providing health care and other services. The 2 to 3 percent inflationary increases we typically receive are not sufficient to keep us competitive with the Phoenix Valley health care market, which has experienced medical inflation rates of 8 to 9 percent. The last provision I want to comment on is section 3 of the bill. It is a provision that would require IHS to pay our Health Care Corporation and other pre-award and startup costs incurred in prior years. This provision would remedy the inequity I described earlier and treat our Health Care Corporation and other affected tribes on the same basis as all other newly contracting tribes have been treated before 1999. In closing, I want to thank Chairman Young and Congressman Hayworth for introducing this bill. I, also, thank the Committee for your commitment and persistence in pursuing a long-term workable solution to the contract support dilemma. The Gila River Indian community urges the Committee to report favorably on H.R. 4148. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Richard Narcia follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.032 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Narcia. Mr. Allen? STATEMENT OF W. RON ALLEN Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the Vice President of the National Congress of American Indians in Washington, DC., and Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe, located in Washington State. I am here testifying on behalf and in support of this particular bill. I am very appreciative of the Chairman introducing this bill and Congressman Hayworth for sponsoring it. I, also, would encourage our Democratic friends and supporters in the Congress to endorse this bill. As Congressman Kildee had noted earlier in his opening remarks, when we find bipartisan or nonspartisan agendas, it's usually about Indian issues that involve the obligations of the Federal Government to Indian communities. The subject matter of this bill is something about which I have testified before this Committee and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs many times over the last number of years. I have personally led the NCAI task force that has conducted an exhaustive study with regard to contract support and the responsibilities of the Federal Government to Indian tribes with regard to contract support. We have studied it in conjunction with the GAO and the IGO and the other Federal agencies, which have continued to analyze their responsibilities with regard to contract support, in complying with or carrying out the full intent of the Self-Determination Act. The Act has been very successful. It is transferring Federal resources to Indian people. It is empowering tribal governments to take over their responsibilities. And reciprocally, it is supposed to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, so that those resources and responsibilities are transferred out to Indian communities. But, this particular Contract Support Cost problem has become a serious impediment and it is frustrating. I appreciated Orie Williams' comments earlier in his testimony about the priorities of the Congress with regard to the funding. You have a lot of money and a lot of issues you have to deal with every year. But with regard to Indian issues, we have consistently shown that the underfunding of Indian programs continues to be a blemish against the Federal Government with regard to how it is addressing the problems and needs of Indian communities, and contract support is one of the fundamental responsibilities. It is an administrative responsibility of carrying out these Federal functions and it is a legitimate function and legitimate responsibility. This bill proposes to resolve a lot of legal ambiguities. It proposes to provide solutions that we believe are reasonable. It addresses a consistency of how to approach it. It suggests approaches on how to provide stability and efficiencies, and there are a number of other things that we believe it does to resolve some of the problems and conflicts that we, the tribes, have had with the Administration. It is quite frustrating that we can't get the Congress or the Administration to raise this issue as a priority and to fully fund it, both in IHS and BIA. It is also equally frustrating that we cannot get the other Federal agencies to take responsibility for this need within their contracts. But this bill puts the pressure on resolving this issue in a logical way. As you look for your offsets if you pass this bill, we would be concerned that the offsets would count against the allocation to the subcommittees, with regard to this jurisdiction. In other words, are you taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other pocket of Indian country? That doesn't solve the problem. You know, that is an issue that we have constantly been challenging the Administration and the Congress with regard to. We raise it with regard to potential impact with regard to this proposal. We believe that this bill moves us off of this contract support cost issue, which we believe is an administrative matter, and moves us on to the serious problems of solving the needs of our communities, to improve health and to improve job opportunities and to deal with the elders and children programs and educational programs and so forth, so that we can focus in on those issues. You will never fund our total needs, but what we do want you to do is fund fully the programs that you have authorized in a way that does not become a detriment to the tribes or enforce us to divert our moneys to cover these expenses, because these expenses are real costs to the tribal government, and we have to cover them some way. So, usually, we will have to divert moneys from other projects, economic projects and so forth, in order to cover these administrative responsibilities. So, we have worked very hard over the last number years, we will continue to work with you and the Congress to persuade you on how to resolve this issue. We believe this bill goes a long way in that direction to resolve this matter. And we believe that we can address many of the issues that concern us about the bill. They are in our written testimony and we encourage you to take a look at some of the suggestions. But, we believe that the bill goes a long ways to solving this problem. We appreciate the opportunity to testify and we appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with you on this subject matter, and we do appreciate your championing our cause. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of W. Ron Allen follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.040 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I yield first to Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think we should note for the record that four members of leadership of the Native American Caucus are here on the dais today and we want to thank our friends from Indian country and beyond, who, again, offer compelling testimony from the front lines, personal experience, the real frustrations with the inability to reconcile this problem. And, again, I thank my friend from Michigan and I thank all of those, who have testified this morning, as to our needs to make this a priority and solve this problem. Especially, I am pleased to see Lt. Governor Narcia and others from the Gila River Indian community here with us today. Lt. Governor Narcia, I am familiar with your community's dilemma concerning prior years pre-award and startup costs. Do you believe that H.R. 4148 will remedy this problem once and for all? Mr. Narcia. Congressman Hayworth, it's a pleasure to see you again. We thank you for your advocacy and support for the community on this issue in the past. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer this question to our Health Care Corporation President, Mr. Franklin Jackson. Mr. Jackson. We believe that H.R. 4148 addresses the legal concerns with reimbursing the community with startup costs. This provision in the bill will require the Indian Health Service to pay the community and other similarly situated tribes prior years award and startup costs on the same basis as Indian Health Service has reimbursed these costs with tribes prior to and after Fiscal Year 1999. And it is my understanding that under the Indian Health Service's new contract support policy, tribes will not have to wait for four or five years, as we did for reimbursement of these costs which are necessary to efficiently and responsibly manage local programs. This will eliminate for other tribes, what has been a financial burden for our health care corporation. Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, sir. I think it's safe to say that's been a severe burden for you and your health care corporation. Mr. Jackson. It has been. Mr. Hayworth. I thank you for that testimony, Mr. Jackson. Again, Lt. Governor, thank you. Whether it's Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma Cherokee, or Native Americans throughout the nation, again, I thank those who come to testify with their compelling stories, and it is our mission to make sure that the rest of our friends in the U.S. Congress understand how important it is to move forward on that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Kildee? Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Lt. Governor Narcia, please give my best to Governor Don Antone, and former Governor, Mary Thomas. Principal Chief, Chad Smith, I have one of your citizens of your sovereign nation working for me, Kim Teehee here. She does a great job. She is a wonderful person. And Ron Allen, Ron, you've been a mentor of mine for so many years, I'm just always grateful to you and glad that you're here. And I don't want to neglect you, Mr. Williams. I don't know if we've chatted before, but I feel very close to this issue and very close to you at the table there. Ron and I had the occasion of spending some time with the President of the United States last summer, flying around the country and out to Pine Ridge, and looked at the housing out there. I appreciated that very much. I think this is a great bill. It's really a--you know, I think we do our best work in this Congress when we do it in a bipartisan way. In the last few years, we really have been approaching Indian legislation in a bipartisan way, and I think that this is--this would really make a real difference in Indian country for health care. It's very important. You know, if Government's role is to promote human dignity, health care is an essential part of that, and we have a real, as I say, moral obligation. I look forward to working with--as we say, we have three of the officers of the Native American Caucus right up here, so you have a very sympathetic audience. But I think we are effective enough to influence the others, and I just really have no questions. I think you've presented compelling reasons why we should proceed this way, and I thank you very much for it. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I have just a couple of questions. I think Mr. Smith or maybe Mr. Williams mentioned that Native Americans have the highest rate of diabetes of any ethnic group in the country. Can someone tell me why that is? Why do Native Americans have a higher rate of diabetes than any other group in the country? Mr. Allen. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just in a very pragmatic way explain. You know, Dr. Trujillo is probably one of the best ones to answer that, because they have spent so much time studying the genetic conditions of Indian people and why the Indian people have such a high propensity for diabetes. We know that it is true that we have a higher level of diabetes than any other ethnic group in the United States, and it is prevalent throughout the United States. It is as prevalent in Alaska as it is throughout the other parts of Indian country. And it's a problem we've been wrestling for many, many years. We have not had any overwhelming success in beating it, but we are moving aggressively forward in educating our communities about the fact that genetically, our people, you know, have a higher propensity for diabetes and because of that, they have a better understanding of how to counter it throughout their lives. So it is a problem we are constantly wrestling with. And how well we're wrestling with it, Dr. Trujillo and his staff will probably know how well we're being successful in beating it back within our communities. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, if I could help, from my perspective, it's not a medical perspective. The increase in diabetes in Alaskan villages is on the upward spiral. And I expect a tremendous cost for diabetes in the next ten to 20 years to increase dramatically. The change in traditional diet from traditional foods to sugar is one of the main reasons that I have observed, change in diet, change in lifestyle, but I think diet has to be the biggest one. As stated, why the article startled me in the paper, and the amount of money spent on sugar, is because for so many years, the lack of clean water to drink, and the average use in our villages which I represent of maybe 50 gallons of water per family per day, instead of the 250 gallons per day of the normal family---- Obviously, the water is going for cooking and food and clothing and doing those necessary things, and it's not going for drinking. That's just one small answer to the question. I think the government commodities where my wife comes from in South Dakota--there is a history of government commodities and change in lifestyle and change in diet has had a tremendous impact. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, sir. Dr. Trujillo? Dr. Trujillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are seeing a great rise of the incidence and also the consequences secondary to diabetes across the Nation among American Indians and Alaska Natives. Unfortunately, we are now even diagnosing adult onset diabetes, which is called Type II Diabetes, in individuals of the ages of 14, 11 and 10. We also have individuals throughout the Nation who have the end stages of diabetes, and being on dialysis at age 14 and 15. Unfortunately, the problem is secondary to numerous factors: One is probably--some genetic propensity for development of the diabetes, but primarily it's secondary to a change in lifestyle, the change in diet, activity, and other associated factors. Smoking and cardiovascular diseases are also on the rise, as are other chronic diseases. There is no tribe throughout the United States and Alaska that is not untouched by diabetes at the present time. We have had some special funding from Congress, secondary to the knowledge that we need additional resources and services. These funds now are assisting tribes and the Indian Health Service at educating people throughout the Nation of what might be able to be done to avoid or help individuals who are now diagnosed with diabetes. The difficulty will be is that we are seeing a rise of the diagnosis of diabetes. In 5, 10, 15, 20 years, individuals who are now being diagnosed will have the consequences of this disease and end-stage problems difficulty in seeing, probably blindness, difficulty in end-stage renal disease, probably dialysis or consequently problems with cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease with loss of limbs that the Chairman from Cherokee mentioned today. It is a scourge of American Indians and Alaska Natives presently and very similar to the TB that we saw earlier in this century. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Doctor. Is this--would you say this, at least in part, is due to health care programs that have been grossly underfunded for much of this century, the lack of education and just the lack of attention paid to that particular issue? Dr. Trujillo. The areas of public health are essential in the prevention. The education, health education and the way that we might be able to prevent the disease is essential. For those who may have inherited propensity for the disease the difficulty is in getting associated care and obtaining adequate care, tertiary care, especially for individuals who have severe disease, throughout the nation. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Doctor. I have some--I don't have any--basically, I guess, not for the last 250 years, Native Americans on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which I represent, but on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, we have a much higher than average rate of diabetes. And it's just interesting that-- which could be the quality of the water, diet, smoking, a whole range of things. But we will work as a group together with all of you to ensure that this eventually becomes a thing of the past. Dr. Trujillo. Yes. We are seeing a rise of diabetes in all populations throughout the nation, but unfortunately, American Indians and Alaska Natives lead in that unfortunate disease at the present time. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Doctor. Yes, sir, Mr. Narcia. Mr. Narcia. Mr. Chairman, in talking about diabetes, the Gila River Community has the unhappy distinction of having the most--the highest rate of diabetes per capita of any group of people in the world. And at this time, we're looking to find solutions to this problem. We are in the process of establishing a diabetes center for our people with the help of Congressman Hayworth, and hopefully we can start resolving some of these issues. But at this point, our people are very frustrated with the care, the research that's been done. We're the most researched people in the world, the Pima people. And it's sad, because we see children as young as less than 10 years old, having diabetes. And our people are also frustrated with the research that's been done in the past where it targeted not the diabetes that's not--that applies to our people, but to the non-Indians, which studies that were done by the Indian Health Service or the Public Health, so, you know, I'm glad you're very aware of this deadly disease that's plaguing our people. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Narcia. Just a couple of quick questions. I know someone needs to catch a plane, so I'll try to expedite this. Mr. Allen in your testimony you state that the Federal Government finally settled $80 million worth of liabilities to tribes which only covered up to the year 1993. Has the Federal Government made any commitment to finalize a settlement to the present date? Mr. Allen. They are currently in the middle of negotiating a settlement. Part of that settlement is a way that they would calculate the indirect cost rate and the contract support responsibilities of Interior with regard to the tribes. And, of course, the settlement is dealing with the other Federal agencies who have underfunded this indirect cost rate. So, we're looking for a compromise solution, and my understanding is they're having good success in the negotiations, and they have had discussions, preliminary discussions with IHS to try to address their responsibility as well. And we hope that we'll get that thing resolved as far as the past settlement issues, and try to move this thing forward. But it doesn't solve this problem as well as this bill does, going into the future. Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So, would you say that this bill--my next question was going to be, what can Congress do to ensure this full settlement up to the year 1999? You feel this bill will do that? Mr. Allen. This bill would significantly contribute to closing the book on what the obligations are, including addressing the matter within the OMB circular in terms of having very specific guidelines as it addresses how you expend these resources from OMB's circular perspective. We believe that it would resolve it once and for all, and make it very unequivocally clear that this is how we're going to pay for this, these funds associated with these contracts. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And, Mr. Smith, in your written testimony, you express support for transferring responsibility for contract support cost issues from the Division of Financial Management to the Office of Tribal Programs. What is your source of criticism of the Division of Financial Management? Mr. Smith. Last year, IHS had a circular which said that all contract support costs requirements should be determined by the local area office in negotiations with each tribe. Disagreements only were to be moved up the chain of command to the Division of Financial Management. We followed that procedure and negotiated a hard number at the Oklahoma Area Office. Despite complete agreement between us and the area Office, the Division of Financial Management personnel stepped in and unilaterally reduced our requirements by $2.7 million. The only reason that the Division of Financial Management did this is because the bulk of the $2.7 million was not in the Cherokee Nation's indirect cost pool, a way of saying that the DFM disagreed with the agreement that we had with the Office of Inspector General for how we account for our funds. By making this reduction, DFM would have us eliminate virtually the entire administrative structure for the Cherokee Nation Health Department. Mr. Gilchrest. And one more followup to that: Your testimony indicates that the Cherokee Nation has never received any so-called direct contract support costs funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In fact, last year the Assistant Secretary acknowledged before this Committee that the BIA has never paid such costs. What has the impact been on the Cherokee Nation? Mr. Smith. The Cherokee Nation operates over $13 million worth of BIA programs, employing 158 individuals who would otherwise be employed by the Bureau. When the Bureau employed these people, it covered their Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance benefits. When the positions were transferred to us, those benefits were held back. Using IHS's historic estimate that these costs ran about 15 percent of salaries, the Bureau has shorted the Cherokee Nation by over half a million per year for a total of $5 million to date. Let me clear with the Committee: To cover the Workers Compensation shortfall, we have had to reduce our BIA programs by the same amount, a half a million dollars a year. This Catch 22 will be remedied by H.R. 4148. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony, and we look forward to working with you on this bill to see it passed as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Now, there's a little--as far as I can see, slight alteration in the next panel. Ms. Woolsey, the Congresswoman from the great State of California, and Mr. Greg Sarris, Chairman, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Novato, California. Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Sarris, welcome. Ms. Woolsey, you may begin. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 6TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; AND MR. GREG SARRIS, CHAIRMAN, FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA, NOVATO, CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I'd like for the record to show that two of the four leaders of the Native American Caucus are still with us today, so thank you for your interest in our Native Americans and for sticking in here with this. I'm pleased to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 946, the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. It's also a great privilege to sit here with Dr. Greg Sarris, who is the Chair of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. He was supposed to be on Panel II. Thank you for putting him next to me so he can catch a plane. He's barely going to make it. Together, we've worked for several years on this bill. And on behalf of Greg and on behalf of the tribe, I appreciate your hearing us today, and allowing us to speak. The bill before you today, H.R. 946, seeks to correct a decades-old wrong by restoring Federal recognition for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Composed primarily of the California Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo tribes in my Congressional District, which you know, Mr. Chairman, is north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge. Joe Saulque, who chaired the Advisory Council on California Indians, stated that lack--no, not lack--luck often determined whether a tribe got recognized. And I am so glad that with today's hearing, we are going to take luck out of the equation by taking the first step in restoring the tribe's status, because it is the right thing to do. It should not be based on luck. The tribes of the Graton Rancheria are a rich part of the San Francisco Bay Area's cultural heritage. The earliest historical account of the Coast Miwok peoples whose traditional homelands include the California communities of Bodega, Tomales, Marshall, and Sebastopol, located along the West Coast of my District, dates back to 1579. Today there are approximately 380 members of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. In 1966, the U.S. Government terminated the tribe's status under the California Rancheria Act of 1958. Almost two decades later, the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy was established by the Congress to study and report on the special circumstances facing California's tribes, those whose status had been terminated. The Council's final report, which was submitted to Congress in September 1997, specifically recommended the immediate restoration of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Following this report's recommendations, the tribes promptly decided on a course of action for the restoration. Since then, I've been working with them on the bill. And it's the bill that's before you today. This consensus bill restores Federal rights and privileges to the tribe and to its members. As is typical with restoration legislation, it reinstates political status and makes tribal members eligible for benefits such as Native American health, education, and housing services. These are services, as you know, that are available to all other Federally-recognized tribes. A unique aspect of H.R. 946, however, is that it specifically contains a clause that restricts gaming, gaming on land that is taken into trust for the tribes. This non-gaming clause is at the express request of the tribe, and is the basis for the broad and bipartisan support that this bill enjoys throughout my Congressional District. It is also key to my support for the tribe's restoration. As most of you know, I'm privileged to represent an area with unparalleled natural beauty. Open space, controlled growth, and quality of life are defining characteristics and values for the residents of Marin and Sanoma Counties. Greg Sarris, and the tribes recognize and appreciate this because they live there also. They are also acutely aware of the growing pressure on restored Indian tribes to establish gaming as a means of economic independence. Their sovereign decision--and I repeat, sovereign decision--to choose other means of economic vitality is out of respect for preserving the current character of the North Bay, and a commitment to our community that their quest for restoration is not to establish gaming. And, most importantly, it is a request for their right to self-determination. As the Federal representative for the area where their tribal land will be established, I'm very proud that this bill addresses their wants and needs as well as the rest of the residents of the vicinity. Interesting enough, my office recently received a visit from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians that are located near San Bernardino, California. They operate gaming on their lands, but they were proud to learn that the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria were asserting their right to make a sovereign decision about their tribe's future. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record, a statement of support for H.R. 946 from this particular tribe. Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered. Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, it's been a long journey for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and on behalf of their hard work and the support they have received from the local community, I ask that this Committee hold the markup of H.R. 946 and bring this bill to the Floor for consideration so that we can restore the deserved recognition that they request. I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to testify in support of restoration for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and I look forward to a continuing working relationship with this Committee on their behalf. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of the Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.043 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. We will do our best to expedite the bill. Mr. Sarris? STATEMENT OF GREG SARRIS Mr. Sarris. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for rearranging the order of speakers here right now. It took a lot of fried bread sales from my people to get me here today, and I've got to catch a plane back. Let me give you a little bit of background, everybody here, about the tribe. The Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria were called by the 1920's 1930's, Coast Miwok or Southern Pomo by linguists and anthropologists. At pre-contact time, we were approximately 5,000 people of many--several dozen bands of Indians who interacted as one group. Today we have 380 enrolled members. Of those members, 380 members, we are all descendants of 12 survivors. We were first contacted by, of course, the Spanish, who put us in the missions. The northernmost missions were in our territory, and then the Mexicans who established an elaborate slave trade situation that enslaved virtually all our men and traded them as far as Mexico, back and forth on the ranchos. In 1850, when California became a State, one of the first pieces of legislation that was enacted by the State of California was the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians which, in essence, legalized Indian slavery. It stipulated that Indians became the rightful property of whomever's land they were on. We were bought and sold until that law was repealed in 1868, three years after the Civil War. For the next 50 years, we lived as indentured servants on whomever's ranch we were on. In the early part of the 20th Century, the BIA began purchasing small tracts of land for the so-called homeless Indians of California. They did not designate us by tribes, but by areas in which we resided on small rancherias or privately- owned property. We were still generally referred to by the derogatory term of digger Indians. In 1920, after looking up and down the coast at our territory, 15.45 acres were purchased in Graton for our members. Seventy-five members moved on in 1920. Unfortunately, of those 15.45 acres, only three were inhabitable; the rest were virtually up and down, so many of our members could not stay there. In 1958 when they came by and did a census at the height of the harvest season, when no one was around, they found three families and with the Rancheria Termination Act, offered those three families or three designees, the right to buy the land, and, in essence, terminate the rancheria as trust land and, therefore, terminate us as--our tribal status as a recognized tribe. That was not settled until 1966, at which point there was one family left, and that family got the land. We were then, as Lynn mentioned, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, terminated, effectively as a tribe, without the vote or the consensus of the rest of the members. Due to taxes and what have you, that family was able to hold on to only one acre of that land. A woman, the daughter of the designee, who still lives on the land, has given it to us as a token to restore to trust status, the tribal lands, and, in turn, restore us as a tribe. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey mentioned the issue of gaming. We worked closely with both the Democrats and Republicans there who did not want development on the land. I, for one, and I think I can speak for many people of my tribe, feel strongly that Indian people should have the sovereign right to game. It isn't that issue; it's working together with our group, that we did not want to develop the land for casinos or any other purposes. What we are asking is for our rights to be returned; that is, our rights to health benefits, education benefits, and housing benefits that are afforded all other recognized American Indian tribes. And as I mentioned, we were terminated in 1966. As you know, since that time, American Indians have made some significant gains in terms of health and education. We would like access to some of that, and we would like once again to be restored as a people and have rights that we once had so that we might not be as we were before 1920, simply homeless Indians of California. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sarris follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.047 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Sarris. How many--that's an interesting but sad story that's covered, I guess, several centuries, to descend to 12 survivors and now, I guess, ascend to 380, which is quite remarkable. How many acres does the bill set aside? Mr. Sarris. Approximately one acre, sir. Mr. Gilchrest. One acre? Mr. Sarris. Yes. Mr. Gilchrest. Now, where are the 380 enrolled members? Do they live in the area? Mr. Sarris. They live throughout Sonoma and Marin, southern Sonoma and Marin Counties, in and around Santa Rosa in private homes. We have no place to live. We've been gathering in front rooms and garages for our meetings. Mr. Gilchrest. You're asking for one acre? Mr. Sarris. One acre. Mr. Gilchrest. Even if you wanted a casino, it would be a pretty small casino. Mr. Sarris. Mr. Chairman, unless we could get an architect that could build an 87 story casino on one acre, it's unlikely. Mr. Gilchrest. So, one acre, which will be a site for, among other things, family reunions, I guess? Mr. Sarris. Family reunions and a place from which we can educate the larger community about who we are, and, again, house historical information and the things that we would like to keep as a tribe for our children and grandchildren. Mr. Gilchrest. Now, will the--so, there are 380 people that consider themselves southern Pomo or Indians of Graton? Mr. Sarris. Yes, Coastal Miwok. Mr. Gilchrest. So, do they all--they're in the area. They're all working. There is no--we're not talking about a Navaho Indian Reservation here, the Sioux Indian Reservation, or anything like that. So, the specific designation would do what for the people that are disbursed? They would receive the same benefits as the other Federally-recognized tribes? Mr. Sarris. Once again, we would have access to health benefits, many of which you heard about this morning earlier. We have no access to that, and yet we have the same problems in high incidence of diabetes and so forth. We cannot get the help from any other Indian agencies. Also, we would be able to apply for scholarships and fellowships as Indians, where at this point we cannot because we're not recognized as a Federal tribe. Mr. Gilchrest. Where would you have access to health care, a traditional doctor's office, a health care facility? Mr. Sarris. We have a health clinic, Sonoma Indian Health right in there that's enjoyed by other tribes. Mr. Sarris. I see. Mr. Kildee? Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think really the main benefit, aside from the fact that you are sovereign and you have a retained sovereignty, we're not giving it to you, we're recognized that retained sovereignty, and that's John Marshall's decision that you hold a retained sovereignty. We are not giving it to you by this bill; we're recognizing that retained sovereignty, and that's a very, very important distinction there, a very substantive distinction. The main gain that you would get by that recognition would be access to Indian Health Service and education. Were you in Michigan--when I was in the Michigan Legislature, I introduced a bill that any Michigan Indian can go to any Michigan public college without paying tuition. It's called the Indian Tuition Waiver Act. And that was--I know that's probably not the law in California, but there are certain rights that accrue to you when you are a recognized Federal tribe. Again, I want to emphasize recognition, not granting your sovereignty, recognizing your retained sovereignty. That's a--I carry with me wherever I go, I carry John Marshall's decision and I carry the Constitution. John Marshall's decision talks about the retained sovereignty, and this talks about your--the three types of sovereignty. I will just read this: Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes, recognized as the three sovereignties. That's very important. Whether you have one acre or like the Navaho, you are--the fact that you have that sovereignty recognized, that you exercise your natural rights as a sovereign people, and that's very important. That's why this bill is very attractive to me. I will be candid, however. I have some concerns about limiting the sovereignty in the area of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Mr. Sarris, have you--have other Indian tribes in California expressed any concern about the fact that you're willing yourself to not exercise that right under IGRA? Mr. Sarris. There has been some concern, yes, from some tribes mentioned, but the majority of the tribes nonetheless support our move. In fact, we have letters of support from the neighboring Pomo Tribes. Another thing I should mention is that as a result of Proposition 1 A in California, one of the provisions or stipulations is that tribes cannot establish gaming on newly acquired trust land. So if we were to establish or find a larger tract of land where we could have gaming, we couldn't have it. But more importantly for us, also part of the provision of Proposition 1 A is that non-gaming tribes can share, have profit sharing in the profits from the gaming tribes. But unless you're recognized, you cannot have access or we will not have access to the profit sharing with the gaming tribes. Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you this, because I really am anxious to recognize your sovereignty. If this legislation was silent about IGRA, would the California law still forbid you then to have gaming on that one acre of land or is that something lawyers have to sort out later? Mr. Sarris. Well, technically no. I mean technically we could have gaming on the one acre but in fact we have made an agreement with the woman living on there that we would not do that on her one acre that she has retained. She has expressed that she did not want that in any way and only wanted her home--you know, there is a little home, her little home that she has retained there--used for historic and cultural purposes. Mr. Kildee. But that land would become your land and it would be sovereign land? Mr. Sarris. The one acre, yes, sir. Mr. Kildee. One acre would be sovereign land. I am just asking these questions because I am really anxious to recognize your sovereignty. You know, we have had tribes in Michigan. I helped get the recognition of five different tribes. We have 12 tribes in Michigan, pretty small tribes. One was--two, three were down to zero acres of land and I helped get them land also, maybe only about 300 acres but-- which by Western standards but obviously not California standards was a fairly good chunk of land, so there are other instances where land has been--Burt, the land in Michigan was illegally taken from the Indians. Burt Lake, 1901, the Governor put them back on the tax rolls for that band and after one year when they did not pay their tax, did not tell them they were back on the tax rolls, they were illegally put back on, confiscated their land because the lumber barons wanted it. They came in--this was 1901, this is not, you know--my dad was 18 years old. He remembers when it happened. They came in and the Sheriff burned down, chased the Indians off the land, burned down their village so they could not return. Some terrible things have happened to Indians and I think that we in the Congress have not just a legal but a moral obligation to right these wrongs as much as we can. I certainly appreciate both of you testifying here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Sarris, Congresswoman Woolsey, thank you very much for your testimony and we will do what we can to--I guess you are not going to use that for grazing too many horses or cattle, but maybe you can expand it later on. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when you just said expand it later on, that is exactly why we want that language to stay in the bill for recognizing the sovereignty and what the tribe wants, and that is no gaming, no matter if they expand it or not, and that is important to the community, it is important to me, and it is important to them, and I would hope we could have a markup and keep the language intact as the bill is drafted now. Mr. Gilchrest. We will work with you, Ms. Woolsey. Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Mr. Sarris. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Our next panel will be the Honorable Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC., Ms. Madonna Archambeau, Chairwoman, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty, South Dakota, Mr. Arthur ``Butch'' Denny, Chairman, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska. Welcome. Mr. Gover, you have double duty today. You can testify on both bills at this time, sir. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC.; MS. MADONNA ARCHAMBEAU, CHAIRWOMAN, YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, MARTY, SOUTH DAKOTA; AND MR. ARTHUR ``BUTCH'' DENNY, CHAIRMAN, SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE OF NEBRASKA, NIOBRARA, NEBRASKA STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN GOVER Mr. Gover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am under a very severe time constraint at this point. Let me be very brief. First, on the Santee bill, we have two concerns with the legislation. First, it is not yet clear to us just how the values for the compensation were established. We certainly support the idea of compensation. We think it is a continuation of the Congress's work over the last few years to compensate all the tribes that were affected by the Missouri Basin projects, and therefore we support the notion of compensation. No one has yet told us what the basis of these particular amounts is and why it is the United States who ought to provide those particular amounts. In addition, the bill would further a practice that we have objected to before by establishing a fund that is sort of off budget, and we would still prefer that these compensation acts be put on the budget and be dealt with in a more straightforward way than has been true in the past. Finally, we strongly recommend a prohibition on per capita payments from these funds. Our experience with per capita in Indian communities, has not been a favorable one. We think that the money is better spent in the hands of the tribal government on community-wide projects as opposed to one-time payments to individual Indians that we have every confidence will have little impact in the community and soon will leave the community. On the Graton Rancheria restoration, we do support the bill. I want to make that clear. We agree. This tribe was wronged when it was terminated. That wrong needs to be righted. Our only concern really is with the gaming provision, and it is not that we wish to force gaming onto a community that does not want it, including this tribe. If the tribe chooses not to game, more power to them. We have absolutely no objection. We support their right to make that decision. Our concern indeed is not even with this particular tribe. If they don't want gaming, that is fine with us. The problem is that what tends to happen in these matters, and frankly this bill is an extension of this phenomenon, is that if we put it in one restoration bill, it will be in every restoration bill, and we think that's wrong. The tribes that were terminated were grievously wronged by the United States. The terms for readmission to the family of Federally-recognized tribes should not be the waiver of their right to conduct these gaming activities, and we object to that. I think that there are other ways to accomplish the objective of preventing gaming, with the tribe's consent, on the particular parcel that we are talking about or even in a particular area, without establishing the precedent that I have every confidence will show up in every restoration bill. There are a couple dozen California tribes that are in the same boat. Each of them undoubtedly will be coming to the Administration and to the Congress asking for restoration. They should be granted restoration, but as I say, the price of admission should not be to give up so important a right on a blanket basis. That, Mr. Chairman, summarizes my testimony. We have examined the evidence surrounding the Graton tribe. We are confident that these are the successors to the historical Graton Rancheria, and we very much support their restoration to Federal recognition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gover follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.049 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gover. Ms. Archambeau. STATEMENT OF MS. MADONNA ARCHAMBEAU Ms. Archambeau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for this opportunity---- Mr. Gilchrest. I'm sorry, Ms. Archambeau. Just 1 second. Mr. Gover, if you need to leave, we will understand. Mr. Gover. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do need to leave. It's a doctor's appointment with my daughter otherwise. I would be happy to stay. Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. We will make sure that the testimony of Ms. Archambeau gets to you so she may have answered some of your questions. Mr. Gover. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Ms. Archambeau. Ms. Archambeau.--opportunity to speak on behalf of my tribe. Mr. Chairman, my name is Madonna Archambeau and I serve as elected Tribal Chairwoman for the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Our land is located in the southeastern corner of South Dakota. Accompanying me this afternoon is Deborah DuBray, our consultant attorney, who has worked with our tribe on this legislation. In addition, I have asked Dr. Michael Lawson to accompany me as well. Dr. Lawson is a respected historian who has developed an expertise on the Pick Sloan program and its impact on Indian tribes. Dr. Lawson has done extensive work on the tribe's claim which serves as a basis for H.R. 2671. They are here to assist me with questions from the Committee. First, let me express my sincere appreciation for the Committee's consideration of H.R. 2671. We have been working several years now to relieve some of the harm that our tribe has suffered as a result of the construction of the Fort Randall Dam on the Missouri River. I am honored to be here today to speak in support of this legislation. Now I would like to make a few points regarding H.R. 2671. The construction of the Fort Randall Dam and Reservoir on the Missouri River destroyed an important part of my tribe's traditional way of life. The Missouri River bottom lands were rich with game and plants and used for traditional foods. We used the plants for ceremonies and medicines, the trees and the bottom lands we used for lumber and fuel. We lost tribal land when the bottom lands were flooded but much of our traditional way of life was taken from us too. Our tribe lost acres and acres of rich productive agricultural land. We lost 3,260 in total acres due to the construction of the Fort Randall Dam and Reservoir, and we lost the entire community of White Swan. It was the practice of the United States to move the Indian communities flooded by the dam construction to higher ground to be re established, but our tribal community of White Swan was not relocated. It was simply destroyed, the families dispersed elsewhere. The community was never replaced. This was and still is a great loss to our people. My tribe and the Santee tribe did not have the same opportunity to negotiate and obtain settlements by acts of Congress as other Missouri River tribes did. Our land was taken by condemnation proceedings in District Court. As a result, my tribe and the Santee suffered great inequities in the initial settlements or taken land. Congress enacted equitable compensation legislation for four other upstream Missouri River tribes whose losses were similar to ours. H.R. 2671 is similar legislation. H.R. 2671 will provide the tribe an annual interest payment from a trust fund established to compensate the tribe for losses and bring some equity to the issue of the Pick Sloan taking. The income will assist the tribe with its economic development and needs and help strengthen culture and social programs. This is a turn that will help the tribe move forward toward a great self determination in tribal affairs. I would like to present the Committee, the members, a copy of the letter written by South Dakota Bill Janklow in supporting this legislation. The Governor and the tribe did not always agree on tribal matters but we are in agreement of this bill. Our tribal members support this bill. It will help heal some of the wounds our tribal elders have suffered. The bill directs our tribal council to develop a plan in the interests of payments to be used. Our tribal plan will include programs and benefit all the tribal members, our elders, and our young. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, this bill, H.R. 2671, is very important to the future of the Yankton Sioux tribe. For these reasons, I ask the Committee to support us in our efforts to obtain equitable compensation in the past inequities. In closing, I want to thank Congressman Bill Barrett and his staff for their work in support of our efforts and I thank the members of this Committee and I respectfully ask the members to support our bill and take positive action in recommending its passage to the full House of Representatives. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Archambeau follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.052 Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Archambeau. We do have a vote on, but we have time to hear Mr. Denny's testimony. You may begin, sir. STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR ``BUTCH'' DENNY Mr. Denny. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am Chairman Butch Denny of the Santee Sioux Tribe in Nebraska. I am pleased to appear before the Committee today to provide some views from the perspective of the Santee Sioux tribe in support of H.R. 2671. I will summarize my remarks from my written statement. The Santee Sioux reservation is located in northeast Nebraska. The Missouri River borders our reservation's northern boundary. I have attached a map to my written statement for reference to the areas we are talking about. I need not repeat the testimony of Chairwoman Archambeau but to say that the Santee tribe suffered similar losses as a result of construction of the Gavins Point Dam. Our tribal land was taken in a similar and swift manner through condemnation proceedings in District Court, resulting in the same inequities to the Santee as was experienced by the Yankton Sioux tribe. In 1952, almost 3 months before the Fort Randall Dam was completed, the Army Corps of Engineers began the construction of the Gavins Point Dam, whose water flooded part of our reservation. The Santee, as other Missouri River tribes, lost a way of life that centered on the river bottom lands. Our bottom land environment was similar in many ways to the other community of White Swan that once existed on the Yankton Sioux reservation. This is why we have joined the Yankton Sioux tribe in seeking an equitable remedy for past unfairness in the initial taking of our tribal lands. We base the justification of our claim on the same history and treatment by the United States. The Santee tribal land base is small, our tribal membership is small, and our claim is small, but our tribal loss due to the construction of the Gavins Point Dam is great. The dams and reservoirs have provided many benefits to the non-Indian people in surrounding communities in the Missouri River Basin through flood control, irrigation, hydroelectric power, and recreation. It is the Indian tribes who paid most for these benefits with their lands, and the Indian tribes who have yet to reap the benefits of the dam projects. There are minimal jobs on our reservation. This bill will aid us in developing economic opportunities for our members. This bill will aid us in addressing our housing, education, culture and social welfare needs. Many of our tribal elders are passing on. Soon there will be no elders to remember the traditional life along the rivers long ago. Our tribal elders believe that a just and equitable settlement is possible. The Santee tribal members unanimously support this bill. One cannot measure the cost of the loss of tradition, the loss of a way of life along a free flowing river, so we must look at the cost of measurable things, the acres of land flooded, the cost of relocation and the like. The Santee lost a total of 1,007 acres to the Gavins Point Project. The Santee settlement claim is minimal in comparison to others that have been enacted before us. The Santee Trust Fund will be capitalized with $8 million and only the interest of the Trust Fund that would be paid to the Santee. The annual interest payments will greatly assist our tribe to develop programs through a plan developed by the tribal council. As Chairwoman Archambeau stated, we have been working several years on this bill. With the Committee's support, it is the hope of the Santee Sioux tribe that H.R. 2671 will be enacted this year. At this time Chairwoman Archambeau and I would like to offer an amendment that will clear up a few inaccuracies in the funding of the bill. I would like to conclude by saying that we are grateful to Congressman Barrett for his support and for his staff, who have worked tirelessly with our tribes on this and other matters. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Arthur ``Butch'' Denny follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.056 Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Denny, I apologize for the time constraints. We will--we will probably be gone for quite some time on this vote and I didn't want to keep people waiting here. Your testimony is highly regarded. Our goal here is to ensure justice. If there was any way for us to create a time machine and go back to 1944, the dam would not have been created. You would have kept your land, so it is just and right for you to be compensated. Mr. Kildee. Mr. Kildee. Well, I basically concur in your statements too. I think we should remedy past injustices, and we are probably going over for several votes right now. we may have some questions in writing for our own background here, but I do very much appreciate your seeking justice. If we are going to be seekers after justice, we have to pursue our own justice. Mr. Denny. OK. One thing I would like to add is that we at no time ever felt is that we should give this money out as a per capita payment. It would be used for infrastructure. Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Ms. Archambeau and Mr. Denny, thank you very much for your testimony and everybody else that accompanied you here today. We will work with you on this issue. Mr. Denny. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that the statement by Mr. Miller be submitted into the record. [The prepared statement of the Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State of California follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.058 Mr. Gilchrest. I wish you all safe travel. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [Additional material submitted for the record follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.073 [Prepared statement of William Janklow follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.074 [Prepared statement of Honorable Bill Barrett follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.075