<DOC> [107th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:84231.wais] RECOGNIZING A PROBLEM--A HEARING ON FEDERAL TRIBAL RECOGNITION ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 7, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-145 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 84-231 WASHINGTON : 2003 ___________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------ JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ------ ------ (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs DOUG OSE, California, Chairman C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii CHRIS CANNON, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois ------ ------ Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Dan Skopec, Staff Director Jonathan Tolman, Professional Staff Member Allison Freeman, Clerk Michelle Ash, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on February 7, 2002................................. 1 Statement of: Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment Division, General Accounting Office; Neal McCaleb, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; and Tracy Toulou, Director, Office of Tribal Justice, Department of Justice............................. 20 Simmons, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut....................................... 10 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, Boston Globe article dated October 30, 2001. 55 Duncan, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, prepared statement of.................. 77 Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment Division, General Accounting Office, prepared statement of. 22 McCaleb, Neal, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, prepared statement of.......... 35 Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of....................... 3 Otter, Hon. C.L. ``Butch'', a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho, prepared statement of.................. 6 Simmons, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of................ 13 Toulou, Tracy, Director, Office of Tribal Justice, Department of Justice, prepared statement of.......................... 43 RECOGNIZING A PROBLEM--A HEARING ON FEDERAL TRIBAL RECOGNITION ---------- THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2002 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Doug Ose (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Ose, Otter, Shays, Cannon, Duncan, and Tierney. Staff present: Dan Skopec, staff director; Barbara Kahlow, deputy staff director; Jonathan Tolman, professional staff member; Allison Freeman, clerk; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Ose. The hearing will come to order. We are going to go ahead and do the opening statements. Hopefully, we will not have any votes for 10 or 12 minutes. At last count, there are more than 550 federally recognized tribes in the United States. These tribes come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from large tribes, such as the Navajo and Cherokee nations with hundreds of thousands of members, to tiny tribes with a handful of members. One tribe in California, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, consists of one adult and seven children. And each tribe has its own political and cultural history. Faced with such a diverse array of existing tribes, the task of acknowledging a new group as a tribe is probably one of the most difficult and complicated tasks facing the Department of the Interior. Today's hearing will look at the issues with Federal tribal recognition. The Federal recognition of an Indian tribe can have a tremendous effect not only on the tribe, but also on the surrounding communities and the Federal Government. Recognition establishes a formal government-to-government relationship between the United States and a tribe. This special relationship also confers a unique type of sovereignty upon Indian tribes. This sovereign status exempts tribal land from many State and local laws, such as sales taxes and gambling regulations. In 1978, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] established a regulatory process intended to provide a uniform and objective approach to recognizing tribes. The regulations established seven criteria that groups must meet in order to be recognized. In 1994, BIA revised its regulations to clarify what evidence was needed to support the requirements for recognition. BIA further updated its guidelines an clarified its procedures in 1997, and again in 2000. Despite these changes, criticism of the process has continued. Groups seeking recognition claim that the process takes too long. Third party groups claim that the process is opaque, with little opportunity for public input. Both sides argue that the current process produces inconsistent decisions. I am particularly concerned about how the public perceives the recognition of tribes. Although this hearing is focused on the issue of tribal recognition, this hearing would be garnering far less attention were it not for gambling. Failure to mention this fact would be to ignore the proverbial ``elephant,'' or should I say more accurately ``elephants,'' in the room. Fifteen years ago, Indian gaming was virtually unknown. In 1999, Indian gaming generated $9.8 billion in revenues, more than the casinos in Las Vegas. There is little doubt that such large amounts of money are changing both the nature and the content of the debate. Regardless of one's opinions about gambling, it is fundamentally changing public perception of what it means to be a tribe. And public opinion invariably changes congressional attitudes. While any reform of the process will involve discussion about criteria, documents, and levels of evidence, I am also concerned that, as reforms are discussed, we do not miss the forest for the trees. Any effort to reform the process, whether it be administrative or legislative, must focus on the underlying legal and policy principles. Fundamentally, the process of recognizing tribes is based on an acknowledgement of the existing political sovereignty of that community. Because tribal recognition is inextricably intertwined with this concept of tribal sovereignty, changes to the recognition process may have long-term consequences for the principles of tribal sovereignty. Any changes to this process should ensure that they do not result in the erosion of tribal sovereignty, particularly for existing tribes. I think that it would be very unfortunate for future historians to look back on this period of Federal-tribal relations and conclude that tribal sovereignty was traded for casinos. As Chief Bourland, Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux once said, ``We must think about issues today, but we must also think about the issues as they will be seven generations from now. What you do today, the decisions you make, will affect them.'' [The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.002 Mr. Ose. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter, for the purposes of an opening statement. Mr. Otter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer my apologies to you and to my colleague Mr. Shays, as well as to my colleague Mr. Simmons. I have another meeting that I have to run to. But I will submit an opening statement for the record. And I will also submit some questions for the record and for the Bureau of Indian Affairs that I would like to get the answers back to as soon as possible. And so with those apologies, Mr. Chairman, I take my leave. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.005 Mr. Ose. Without objection, we will accept the testimony and we will see that the questions get posed. I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut for the purposes of an opening statement. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ose, thank you as well for calling this hearing. I also want to thank all of this morning's panelists for being here, particularly one of my heroes, Rob Simmons. Rob, it took me about 4 years before I had the courage as a Member of Congress to address a committee. So I admire that as well. Granting Federal recognition means creating sovereign nations within our Nation and must be done with utmost care. Because federally recognized tribes are eligible to automatically receive Federal benefits and, in many instances, are permitted to establish gaming operations, acknowledgement is a decision that should follow a well-defined, non-political process that is fair, objective, and transparent. Our Nation has a responsibility to Native Americans. I think that is an understatement. Groups meeting the established and objective criteria should receive Federal recognition and absolutely all of its attendant benefits. The bottom line is this process is suffering. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is desperately in need of help. It lacks the staff and resources to conduct thorough reviews of applications for recognition. It has reached the point where courts play an increased role in the process because of the delay. Moreover, it has created tension between towns and tribes throughout the Nation. While the focus of today's hearing is not gambling, gambling must be recognized as a key component in creating deep skepticism about groups' motives for seeking recognition. And it has invited corruption into the very serious process of establishing these nations. The stakes are quite high. Outside forces cast their influence in hopes of amassing some of the extraordinary wealth gambling will ultimately provide, particularly in the Northeast. I thank Assistant Secretary Neal McCaleb for being here today and for the work he has done to try and make this a better process. But his task is very difficult. Today's hearing is an important part of our efforts to improve the recognition process. In September 2000, Congressman Frank Wolf and I, as well as a number of other Members, asked the Government Accounting Office [GAO] to review the Federal recognition process. I am encouraged by the report's finding of specific areas that present weakness, the Bureau of Indian Affairs proposals to address these problems, and today's hearing to discuss where we can be of assistance in making this a fairer process. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding these hearings. And I again welcome all of the witnesses and, obviously, my colleague from Connecticut. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Shays. It is a pleasure now to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut for the purpose of giving testimony to this committee. STATEMENT OF HON. ROB SIMMONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And thanks to my distinguished colleague from the western part of the great State of Connecticut, Chris Shays. My home State of Connecticut has been and continues to be affected by our Federal Indian recognition process. We are home to two federally recognized tribes at this point in time, both of whom were recognized within the last 20 years. And we have an additional 10 groups at least, there may be more than that now, that are seeking recognition. I have got a couple of maps from a local newspaper that might illustrate the point, if we could bring it to the dais. My district is also host to two of the world's largest casinos, not largest Indian casinos, but largest casinos--the Foxwoods Resort Casino run by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and The Mohegan Sun run by the Mohegan Tribe. This past year, according to press reports, the two casinos generated $1.5 billion in slot revenues, that is slot revenues alone. So you can see that there is one good reason here, at least this is one of the reasons, why Indians living in or bordering Connecticut want to be federally recognized. Federal recognition and Indian gaming have benefits and adverse effects for our community and, in fairness, we have to discuss both. They create jobs, and in Connecticut the jobs were created at a time when manufacturing was declining and when our defense sector was failing dramatically. These casinos pay upwards of $300 million a year into the State budget, directly into the State budget. And tribal members have been generous with their own personal wealth. They have supported community projects and charities over the years. But there are also negative impacts, and that is what concerns me greatly. Recognition means the right to operate a casino and that places pressure on local municipalities who have no right to tax, zone, or plan for these facilities. And I will point out that this colored map of Connecticut, Mr. Chairman, shows you the 169 towns and municipalities. We do not have effective county government; we have towns and then we have the State, unlike many other States around the country. And so each of these little municipalities has to generate its own tax base, its own revenues, it has its own highway departments, emergency services, schools, etc. So a large casino, or let us say one of the largest casinos in the world placed in one of these municipalities creates dramatic burdens for these local governments. One example of this is North Stonington. And I have invited the Mayor of North Stonington, Nick Mullane, to be here today. I believe he is seated in the row over there. He has lived with recognition and he has lived with the issues of taking land into trust for the past decade. Nick, and the adjoining municipalities of Ledyard and Preston have had to seek the lonely and expensive process of obtaining interested party status to recognition petitions. And they have been placed in very difficult political, economic, and social positions within their communities because of this. Road construction, infrastructure needs, police, fire, and emergency services all have increased due to Federal recognition and gaming. Also with Federal recognition, you have the right to take land into trust. And for these tribes that have very profitable casino operations, they can acquire lands in the local community and petition to take those into trust. And this has kept these towns in the courts for many, many years. We have litigated these issues, we have tried to negotiate these issues, and now we would attempt to legislate these issues. Mr. Chairman, I would request unanimous consent to introduce into the record the testimony of Nick Mullane and also of our Attorney General Blumenthal who has been very active on these measures. I would also like to request that the statement of Chief James Cunha of the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Tribe be introduced into the record, a statement by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, who has been extremely active, and also a statement by MaryBeth Gorke-Felice, who comes from the Woodstock area. Mr. Ose. Without objection. Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, to sum up, Federal recognition policies are turning Connecticut, the Constitution State, into the casino State, and we do not like it. We want more control over the process. We want to close the loopholes. We want a level playing field. And the legislation that I have introduced I believe meets all those criteria. There are seven points to this legislation that I have summarized in my statement. I can see my time has run out. If you extend me 1 minute, I can summarize those. Mr. Ose. The gentleman has gone an extra minute. Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it requires the BIA to notify States when a tribe petitions. Second, it requires the BIA to consider any testimony from municipalities that might be affected. It requires that all recognition criteria be met. And if you look at the GAO report, they mention the seven criteria. But, as we know, these criteria can be waived in a decision. We feel that each of the criteria should be met. And we feel that findings relative to the criteria should be published so we all know what the BIA has done to meet those criteria. To help the BIA with its difficult tasks, we recommend increasing the budget from $900,000 a year to $1.8 million, doubling their budget, and, in particular, to apply those to the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research which I believe is an over-burdened agency. Good people and talented people, but just too big a burden. We recommend creating a grant program, $8 million per year, for local governments to assist them in participating in decisions related to recognition. We recommend creating a $10 million grant program to be made available to federally impacted towns for infrastructure, public safety, social services, and other needs that are created as a direct consequence of recognition and taking land into trust. And finally, we believe that we should close the revolving door, have a cooling off period of 1 year in which high level BIA officials who leave Government are restricted from appearing before the agency or on behalf of tribes. This is a standard procedure for other Government agencies and we think it should be applied here. I thank the chairman again, and my colleague Chris Shays and my colleague Nancy Johnson, who cannot be here today, for all of their work on these issues. And I am happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Hon. Rob Simmons follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.008 Mr. Ose. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I am going to go ahead and recognize the gentleman from Connecticut for 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. I will follow you. Thanks. Mr. Ose. All right. I would like to welcome Mr. Cannon from Utah. Appreciate it. Mr. Simmons, I do have a couple of questions here. In terms of the experience that you are familiar with, how have your local communities worked in obtaining information from the BIA over tribal recognition? Has that been a smooth process or are there things that we can do to improve that? Mr. Simmons. No. No, it has not. In fact, one of the first things that I did on this issue as a State Representative back in 1993 was request information relative to the issue of taking land into trust as a consequence of recognition. I was unsuccessful in my correspondence. So I had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request. In response to that request, I went to Washington, DC, spent 2 days in Washington attempting to get access to the files. It was an arduous and very unpleasant experience. It was somewhat productive in that we were able to get some of the information we needed. But, by and large, it was a very unpleasant and arduous experience, and it was an experience that I had as a sitting State Representative. Since that time, on some of the other recognition petitions, and in particular on the ones that relate to North Stonington, I think Mr. Mullane has it in his testimony, these municipalities have had to submit Freedom of Information Act requests to get at information. They have had to spend upwards of $500,000 in legal fees to pay highly professional attorneys here in Washington, DC, to pursue these issues on a regular basis. In the case of North Stonington, we are talking about a small, rural, agricultural town with virtually no industrial base, I think one hotel maybe--three, excuse me; they have built a couple more. Just 5,000 people. A very small municipality that is essentially having to deal with a very complicated legal issue that potentially has dramatic effects for the community. And yet, they have to do it by and large on their own because they are a separate municipality, a creature of the State. They do not have a county government or county resources or a group of resources to help them. Mr. Ose. In terms of the seven criteria that are used in the recognition process, are the local communities able to have input on the decisions on those seven to adequate level? Mr. Simmons. They will say that they do not think they do. And I will have to go on their testimony. Of course, Mr. Mullane is here if the chairman wishes him to respond to that question. Mr. Ose. Hold on a minute. Mr. Mayor, would you like to come over and join us. Mr. Simmons. The experience that we have had is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs may selectively weigh several, but not all, of these criteria, that it is discretionary at this point in time. And this makes it a moving target, if you will. It makes it very difficult for these municipalities to track the process and, in many cases, it is hard for them to respond to a decision within the agency if they are not fully informed about that. And then that goes to the issue of keeping them informed. Under the provisions of my legislation, we are setting up a system where States have to be notified, and States in turn have to notify their municipalities so that these little towns and interested parties will be kept in the loop. Mr. Ose. Mr. Mullane, I think I have probably violated every protocol here in bringing you up here with a Member of Congress, and they are all laughing at me down there. But do you have any input? I have not read your testimony. We did enter it into the record, and I will read it. Do you have any observations or comments? Mr. Mullane. My testimony kind of speaks for itself. But if you would like, I would ad lib for a few minutes. Mr. Ose. You could summarize, if you would. Mr. Mullane. In regard to your Freedom of Information request, we went through the normal channels. The first issue was to ask to be an interested party, we were finally granted that, and then we submitted Freedom of Information requests, we had probably fifteen different requests or more that went in, and it took us 2\1/2\ years to get the documents. It was a very disappointing process. We did try to comment on the seven criteria during the process. We found it very burdensome. When they made the preliminary decision they admitted they had used only 40 percent of the documents or information that we had supplied. They said that they were going to recognize on a preliminary basis both the groups in the town, but they did not know if there was going to be one tribe, two tribes, or no tribe, and they had not considered any of the information from 1972 to present. So it made it virtually impossible for us to understand whether our comments were valid, how to approach the issue, or to even get involved in the process. Mr. Ose. I see my time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Again I would like to now recognize both our witnesses. I want to just ask you, Mr. Simmons, is it your belief that if an Indian tribe is recognized as a federally recognized tribe, that they have all the rights that accompany recognition? Mr. Simmons. A very interesting question and a complicated question. The two tribes that are federally recognized in Connecticut, both in my district, one is the Mohegan Tribe, who were recognized after going through what I call the BIA process, a fairly long, arduous process of documenting their history and meeting all of the criteria in regulation, and they were recognized in that fashion. The other tribe is the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and they were recognized by legislative act. As I recall that process, the Bureau of Indian Affairs testified against their recognition at the time that congressional hearings were held. Initially, the legislative document was vetoed by the President. But in a following year, that language proceeded again through the Congress and passed. One of the great debates in Connecticut is whether that legislative act extended to the tribe all of the benefits and privileges, to include buying and petitioning to take into trust land outside the 2,000 acre settlement area or whether the legislative act limited that tribe. Mr. Shays. Let me just be clear on this. Is that a right that exists to Indian tribes in general if they are recognized, to be able to access more land? Mr. Simmons. It is my understanding, yes. Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Simmons. That is my understanding. But I guess the point I was trying to make is if you have a legislative recognition, depending on how that legislation is crafted, the question could be raised are all benefits extended or are the benefits extended as described within that statute and does that take precedence over Federal statutes generally for a recognized tribe? It is a complicated issue. It has been in the courts for 7 years. Mr. Shays. Excluding that comment, let's just take your point about a legislatively recognized tribe, but if it goes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs process, is it your belief that a tribe should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a federally recognized tribe? Mr. Simmons. I think they are under the law. And so that creates the situation where, in the State of Connecticut where you have at least 10 petitioning tribes that, if they are all recognized, theoretically, I would assume they would all benefit from the casino privilege. Mr. Shays. Right. So there are going to be some more tribes in the second congressional district that may be recognized and it is not your contention that they would not deserve those rights and privileges of a federally recognized tribe? Mr. Simmons. No, I think they do deserve those rights. That is why the recognition process is so important. Mr. Shays. Right. Which is really the point that I would love our guest and the First Selectman to address. What is your concern about the recognition process in the BIA? Mr. Simmons. Speaking for myself, I feel that the process is not sufficiently open, accessible to interested parties, such as municipalities or other groups. I feel that it is subject to political influence. And I think that if we have criteria for recognition, they should be uniformly engaged, they should perhaps even be statutory, and that the BIA be required to meet those criteria. Speaking on behalf of some of the petitioning tribes, I think the process takes far too long. We have petitioning tribes that have begun as far back I think as 1988. It is not fair to them. I think the GAO report pointed out that the process, for whatever reason--and they give some reasons--is broken and in need of fixing. And I think if you look at the appendix of the GAO report and read Mr. McCaleb's comments, he concurs in some of the recommendations of the GAO report, which I find a very positive thing. The fundamental question is do we fix it within Interior or do we create a new agency, which has been recommended by some people? I tend to prefer to fix it within the system. Mr. Shays. Would your colleague like to respond? And the question is, do you basically concur with Mr. Simmons in terms of the areas where there are challenges in the BIA, or is there any other suggestion that you would add in addition to what he has suggested? Mr. Mullane. I think there are a couple of areas, and I did put them in the last part of the testimony. One part is the submission of evidence. Basically the way the system works now, the tribes or the groups get the opportunity to submit the information at the end of the process. No one else is allowed to comment. That is really inappropriate, because the information on the petition should be made in a full and final basis, the majority of the material should be available so everybody can comment on it on an ongoing process and not have at the end of the procedure volumes of documents submitted so nobody else can comment or give the other side of that. That is one of the areas. OK? Mr. Shays. I see my time is running out. Let me just again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. I know that one of the things that our staffs do well and the work of our committee is to recommend to the authorizing committees changes, and to the administration ways that they can change in terms of rules and regulations, and to the appropriators how they can allocate resources. I would hope that this committee would weigh in on suggesting to our appropriators they provide more resources for the BIA, because I think it is a system that is almost imploding, and the courts are then showing great impatience, and then there is tremendous pressure on the BIA to recognize without doing due diligence. I hope we can work together on that as well. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Mr. Simmons, thank you for joining us today. Mr. Mayor, appreciate it. We are going to take a short break here. We have a vote on the floor agreeing to a rule and we have 9 minutes and 27 seconds. We will be back shortly. Mr. Simmons. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. Ose. We are going to go ahead and release this panel. The second panel, if you would get yourself organized, when we get back we will go forward. [Recess.] Mr. Ose. We are going to reconvene here. I have to apologize. I made a mistake earlier in terms of swearing in our non-member witnesses. I apologize to my colleagues for that. It will not happen again. First, I want to welcome Mr. Hill, Mr. McCaleb, Mr. Toulou for joining us today. But in this committee we swear in our witnesses if they are not Members of Congress. So if you would all rise and raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Ose. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Our first witness in the second panel is Barry Hill. He is the director of the Natural Resources and Environment Division of the General Accounting Office. Mr. Hill, if you could provide us with 5 minutes maximum, we would appreciate a summary. STATEMENTS OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; NEAL MCCALEB, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND TRACY TOULOU, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRIBAL JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure for me to appear before this subcommittee today and to have the opportunity to discuss our work on the Bureau of Indian Affairs' process for recognizing tribes. In 1978, the BIA established a regulatory process intended to provide a uniform and objective approach to recognizing tribes. The process requires groups that are petitioning for the recognition to submit evidence that they meet certain criteria; basically that the group has continued to exist as a political and social community descended from a historic tribe. This past November we issued a report that evaluated BIA's recognition process and, in summary, we found the following: First, the basis for BIA's recognition decisions is not always clear. While we found general agreement on the criteria that groups must meet to be granted recognition, there is no clear guidance that explains how to interpret key aspects of the criteria. For example, recent controversy has centered on the allowable gap in time for which there is little or no evidence that a petitioner existed. In writing its regulations, the BIA intentionally left this point open to interpretation in order to accommodate the unique characteristics and historical circumstances of each petitioner. However, this strategy increases the risk that the criteria may be applied inconsistently. To mitigate this risk, BIA relies on precedents established in past decisions to provide guidance in making new ones. While this appears to be a reasonable approach, there are no guidelines on how and when precedents should be used, and there is no provisions to make this information available to the public. Because recognition decisions will always rely on the judgment of decisionmakers, clear and transparent explanations of decisions are necessary to maintain confidence in the objectivity of the recognition process. Second, we also found that the length of time needed to rule on petitions is substantial. Based on the historic rate at which BIA has resolved petitions, it could take 15 years to resolve all the petitions currently before BIA. This does not include the petitions that are in the pipeline but not yet ready to be evaluated. In contrast, the regulations outline a process for evaluating a petition that should take about 2 years. This situations is a result of an increased workload coupled with limited resources and inefficient procedures. The BIA recently received a large influx of completed petitions. In a 5-year period during the mid-1990's, it received more than 40 percent of all the completed petitions it had received during the 23 years the program has been operational. Despite this increased workload, however, the staff assigned to evaluate these petitions has dropped from its peak of 17 in 1993 to an average of less than 11 staff over the last 5 years. That is a decrease of more than 35 percent. Moreover, during this time, the BIA's staff responsible for evaluating petitions was compelled to devote more and more of their time to responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, appeals, and lawsuits. In conclusion, the BIA's recognition process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive Federal recognition. Nevertheless, it was intended to provide a clear, uniform, and objective approach, and it is the only avenue to Federal recognition that has established criteria and a public process for determining whether groups meet those criteria. However, weakness in the process have created uncertainty about the basis for recognition decisions. Without improvements, confidence in the recognition process as an objective and an efficient approach could erode and parties may look to the Congress and the courts to resolve recognition issues. The end result could be that the resolution of tribal recognition cases will have less to do with the attributes and qualities of a group and more to do with the resources that petitioners and third parties can marshal to develop a successful political and legal strategy. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.019 Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Our next witness is the Honorable Neal McCaleb, who is the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Mr. Secretary, for 5 minutes, if you could summarize, that would be great. Mr. McCaleb. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shays. Thank you very much for the opportunity and privilege of being with you today and discussing this important process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes. As was stated earlier, the recognition process conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Acknowledgement and Research is a very serious activity in that, once a petitioning group is granted recognition, the tribe enjoys the unique sovereign-to-sovereign status with the U.S. Government that actually supersedes its relationship with State and local governments, giving it a unique privilege and exemption from certain State and local laws. It carries with it these immunities and privileges. So, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the BAR have been deliberate in the process. We have developed these seven criteria which, although subject to interpretation, really do appear to me to be fairly objective. In my confirmation hearings, this issue was raised in the Senate about whether I thought it was appropriate to leave the recognition process with the BAR. My response at the time, having little knowledge of the process, but I still hold to that, is that, as imperfect as it may have been, it occurs to me that the personnel, the staff and the organization, plus the backup of the legal counsel and the Solicitor's Office with extensive experience and expertise in this area, probably ranks it as the most qualified group on the horizon to conduct the anthropological, genealogical, and historical research. The BAR makes recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, and that person renders a decision on the appropriateness in his judgment of the recognition process. The GAO audit, as just indicated, raised the issues of the predictability and the timeliness of the recognition process. The predictability is one that we have discussed at great length. Any judgmental process is subject to criticism in this highly controversial area. This has been made clear. The gaming aspects that have influenced this have made it a very, very controversial issue. We have responded to the GAO's recommendations and we have indicated that we are going to do three things: To provide a clear understanding of the basis used in the recognition process. In other words, make it more transparent for all. This has been suggested in the GAO report; to develop a strategy that identifies how to improve our responsiveness to the petitioners and the people that are interested in the petition; and third, to establish a new program of how to improve performance under the Government Performance and Results Act. We expect to have these recommendations ready by the middle of April of this year, and to provide a strategic plan. As indicated, there are a lot of petitions on the desk. There are 171 groups who have filed letters of intent. We actually have 14 petitions that are active, and 9 others that are ready for active consideration. There is a considerable backlog of work. We do need additional personnel. It is not just a matter of funding. We have vacancies within the BAR that we have not filled that we have not been able to attract personnel to, for the salaried levels which we offer. It is not just somebody off the street that we want to train, but the credentials for these professionals are extremely important and they are high credentials. I think I will conclude my summary, Mr. Chairman, and answer any questions that you might have of me. [The prepared statement of Mr. McCaleb follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.025 Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your being here and spending time with us. Our third witness today is the director of Office of tribal Justice, Mr. Tracy Toulou. We appreciate your coming out and visiting with us. If you could summarize in about 5 minutes, that would be great. Mr. Toulou. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Tracy Toulou and I am the Director of the Office of Tribal Justice in the U.S. Department of Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the basic principles of Indian tribal sovereignty and Indian law as they relate to the issue of the acknowledgement of Indian tribes by the Federal Government. The overarching principle of Indian tribal sovereignty is that Indian tribes pre-existed the Federal Union and draw their powers from their original status as sovereigns before the European arrival. Indian tribal sovereignty is a retained sovereignty, and it includes all the powers of a sovereign that have not been divested by Congress or by the tribes' incorporation into the Federal Union. As a result, tribal sovereignty is conferred upon the tribes through Federal recognition. Rather, Federal recognition is a process by which the Federal Government acknowledges that particular Indian entities retain their sovereign status. Indian tribal sovereignty, like sovereignty in general, has two main components--an external one and an internal one. The external component of Indian tribal sovereignty relates to the ability of a sovereign entity to engage in relationships as a government with other entities. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution contemplates that Indian tribes will engage in government-to- government relations with the United States as evidenced through the Treatymaking and Indian Commerce Clauses of the Constitution. Thus, one feature of Indian tribal sovereignty is that all tribes will relate to the United States as sovereign governments. For the Federal Government's part, recognition of an Indian tribe represents a determination that this type of bilateral relationship should exist between the Federal Government and a tribe. The internal component of tribal sovereignty relates to the tribes' power and relation to their members and territory. As a matter of Federal law, Indian tribes have been deemed ``unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.'' I want to talk for a moment about the Federal acknowledgement process. Inherent in the Treatymaking and Commerce Clause powers is the authority of the Federal Government to determine which entities government-to-government relations will exist. Courts have recognized that both political branches of the Federal Government have authority to make these determinations. For its part, Congress has the authority to determine appropriate subjects of the Indian Commerce Clause and Treatymaking powers. Courts give Congress broad deference in making these determinations, subject only to the requirement that they apply to distinctly Indian communities. It is worth noting that while the Supreme Court has expressly stated its ability to determine whether Congress has over-stepped this bound, no court has ever overturned a congressional determination that an entity has tribal status. As with congressional power to recognize tribes, the Supreme Court has stated that the Executive power to determine tribal status is entitled to deference. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior has, by regulation, set forth criteria that are aimed at identifying groups that are sovereign tribes. The regulatory criteria include factors which determine which entity is in fact sovereign. While the Executive power to determine tribal status is presumably subject to at last the same constitutional limits that are imposed on Congress, we are not aware of any court decision overturning a determination by the Secretary that a group should be recognized as a tribe. Now I would like to turn to the effects of Federal recognition. When Interior makes a final determination to acknowledge an entity as a federally recognized Indian tribe, certain consequences follow. First, the tribe may exercise sovereign powers as a matter of Federal law. Second, the tribe has the same status as other federally recognized tribes unless limited by Federal law and becomes eligible to enter into bilateral government-to-government relations with the United States. Briefly, turning to those sovereign powers, a federally acknowledged tribe has sovereign immunity, may exercise jurisdiction over its territories and establish tribal courts, may assert jurisdiction over Indians who commit criminal offenses in Indian Country, and may otherwise exercise their sovereign authority except as limited by Federal law. Next, the relationship with the Federal Government. Federal acknowledgement entails the existence of a trust relation between the United States and the tribes. Congress has itself declared that the trust responsibility includes protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government. The United States provides assistance to the tribes and their members in a variety of forms. In many cases, the United States provides direct service to the Indian tribes and their members. In others, the United States provides assistance through grants and other funding mechanisms. Like nearly every Federal agency, Department of Justice participates in this relationship. With respect to direct services, the Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes serious crimes in most areas of Indian Country. The Department also provides grants and other assistance to tribal law enforcement agencies and tribal justice systems. Additionally, the Department protects tribal sovereignty in the courts and does so in litigation by representing the Federal Government in suits and as amicus curiae in cases involving tribal regulatory, adjudicatory, and tax jurisdiction, and that includes a tribe's sovereignty to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases involving tribal members. In closing, the Department supports the tribal sovereignty and is committed to working with federally acknowledged tribes on a government-to-government basis. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would welcome any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Toulou follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.032 Mr. Ose. Thank you for joining us this morning. We are going to go to questions. I know that some of the members have competing commitments. Mr. Shays, for 5 minutes. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. McCaleb, in February 2000, your predecessor, Kevin Gover, unilaterally issued a directive that made significant changes in the acknowledgement process. It is my understanding this directive affected the rights of petitioners and interested parties but no notice was given and no public comment was requested. By terminating the right of interested parties to comment prior to a proposed acknowledgement finding once the petitioner goes under active review, BIA is ultimately limited to independent research ultimately favoring petitioners with financial backing. Are you anticipating this directive to be withdrawn or for a public review process to take place? Mr. McCaleb. There has been no discussion about withdrawing that directive. I am certainly open to the review of the content of that directive. Mr. Shays. Is it the practice of your department to issue directives without allowing for public comment? Mr. McCaleb. No, it is not. Mr. Shays. OK. It may be a good directive, it may not be, but it would seem to me that you would want to have public comment on it and review. So I would request that you at least look at that issue, if you would. Mr. McCaleb. So noted. Mr. Shays. During the Clinton administration, an Executive Order was issued to recognize the Duamish Indian tribe in the State of Washington--I hope I am pronouncing that right, D-U-W- A-M-I-S-H. Mr. McCaleb. Duwamish. Mr. Shays. Duwamish tribe had made an application for recognition and followed all standard procedures. Shortly after the Bush administration came to power, a second Executive Order was issued rescinding recognition. Can you explain to me the factors that led to the decision to rescind the recognition order? On what grounds was the application for recognition denied, and what new evidence has come to light since the Clinton administration decision? Mr. McCaleb. The decision was a preliminary decision, I believe. On the review of the Bureau of Acknowledgement and Research, the case they made, I think there were three specific criteria which the tribe did not meet. And on that basis, I rendered the decision to---- Mr. Shays. Were there a number of Executive Orders issued like this one? Was this the only one, or were there others as well for recognition? Mr. McCaleb. I think there may have been two others issued that have been subsequently dealt with by this administration. Mr. Shays. In the budget that the President has submitted to Congress, have you asked for more personnel? Mr. McCaleb. In this budget we have not asked for more personnel. Mr. Shays. Did you make a request for more personnel? Mr. McCaleb. I did not. Mr. Shays. Tell me why. Mr. McCaleb. It is a matter of priorities, Congressman. We have a very limited budget that has to extend and provide things, including education, law enforcement, welfare to individuals who are in need of that, and a variety of other services that we are currently inadequately supplying. It has been estimated by the tribal leadership, the tribal budget advisory board that our total budget right now is something less than a third of what the needs are. And it is just a matter of prioritization for us at this point. Plus, we have not been able to fill the vacancies that we have. Mr. Shays. Why is that? Mr. McCaleb. Because we have not had qualified respondents. Mr. Shays. Are you paying the amount of money that you need to be paying? Mr. McCaleb. Well, apparently not, Congressman. But we are paying what is allowable for us, the maximum allowable for us to pay under the provisions of the Office of Personnel Management. Mr. Shays. I guess, though, that you let them off the hook, because if you do not tell them that you cannot fill these positions and they do not know why you cannot fill these positions, they are not going to be able to make the kind of decisions they need to make. Mr. McCaleb. Well, we are still trying to fill the positions, and we have some interested applicants now for two of the vacancies. Mr. Shays. What concerns me is that you are basically making decisions to make--well, I can only relate it to my State because that is what I know. These are billion dollar operations profit. Recognition makes some not a millionaire, but makes them billionaires over time. And so they have tremendous incentive to use all the resources necessary to win approval and to hire the best and the brightest. And it would seem to me like a no-brainer for the administration to want to have some of the best and brightest be able to respond. And you do have some of the best and the brightest but you do not have enough of them. Mr. McCaleb. That is correct. Mr. Shays. And what you just said, ``that is correct,'' to me is almost astounding that you would not say that we need more people to do the job. Now, if you were a supervisor, who would you present your budget to? Mr. McCaleb. The Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Shays. No. Does your budget go to the Secretary or does it---- Mr. McCaleb. It goes to the Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget within the Department of the Interior. Mr. Shays. But what you are saying to me is that you have not asked the Assistant Secretary within the Department of the Interior for the people necessary to do the job. So how does that person know you need those people? Mr. McCaleb. She would not unless I made the request. Mr. Shays. And so you told us you need it, and you told us you did not make the request because there were other things that had priorities. But I think you would at least put them on notice. This is going to blow up in your face. Mr. McCaleb. One of the responsibilities that I have is to allocate the probable anticipated resources that we are going to receive and prioritize how that money is going to be utilized. Mr. Shays. See, I think that is a different issue. I think the issue is that you need to make the request necessary and then if you fail to get what you need, then you allocate what you are given. Mr. McCaleb. Congressman, I do not intend to be argumentative, but I can make that same case. Mr. Shays. I do not mind arguing. I think it is a losing argument. Mr. McCaleb. I could make that same case, that same rationale for any one of a dozen areas that affect the safety, health, and welfare of Indian people. Mr. Shays. Are you meaning to tell me that in the safety, health, and welfare that you need more people? Mr. McCaleb. Yes. Mr. Shays. Well then you need to make that request. This is like basic. This is like really basic. If the person in the know does not make the request, then what is the point of our going to the appropriators to say you need the money? How do they know if you have not even made the request? Mr. McCaleb. We have made requests that are substantially higher than the amount of money that was approved by the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Shays. OK. Let me back up a second, and I will not dwell too much longer on this. I had a lot of other questions I wanted to ask, but this is kind of to me like basic 101 Management. You have a moral obligation to do your job. We have a moral obligation to do our job. It strikes me that one of your moral obligations is to make an argument to the people that work in your Department that you do not have the people necessary to do the job. Do you have the people necessary to do the job in a timely fashion on recognition? Mr. McCaleb. In consideration of the backlog, no, we do not. Mr. Shays. Absolutely not. So it strikes me that you need to make that case. Then if someone else along the way says, you know what, you have given us a lot of priorities, I know you are asking for a lot, I understand why you are asking for all of this, but we simply cannot afford it. That is their decision. And then you make the best of what you have got of a pretty bad decision. But you have taken everyone else off the hook, including Congress, including us, because we can basically say the people running the Department did not ask for the money. My time has passed. I will just come back. Mr. Ose. We will have a second round if the Members choose. Mr. Cannon. Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only a minor disagreement with my colleague. I do not think Congress so much is on the hook as the American people on these kinds of issues. That is why the budgeting process is so significant. I know, Mr. McCaleb, that you are aware of the tribe or a situation in southern California which involves a health clinic which was taken into trust for seven tribes but which was titled only to one tribe, that was the Cuyuah tribe. And now that tribe intends to build a casino on the property, and that despite the objections of the other tribes that were involved that do not have title to that property and also all the local congressional delegation, in fact. Duncan Hunter, who is our colleague here, introduced a bill to prevent that transition in use from happening last year and the bill passed the House unanimously. Now I understand that your agency may be getting ready to approve the change in the land use despite all this opposition. That is not exactly the issue we are dealing with today, but I think it is related and speaks to many of the same points. As you know, I think, Mr. McCaleb, I am not a fan of Indian gaming, which is about a $12 billion a year industry, and that is why some of these questions are so intense, but I do support the idea, as you know, of tribal sovereignty. As a member of the Resources Committee, I deal with these issues more than I think most Members in Congress. But when abuses like this one that I have just described happen, it makes it harder for those of us who set aside our distaste for gambling in the name of tribal sovereignty to continue. In this case, it seems to me that a tribe is taking advantage of what amounts to an administrative convenience to build a casino. It is on land that is 40 miles from the reservation and on land that was never intended for anything other than a health clinic. Congressional support of tribal sovereignty is a tenuous thing. I would like to continue personally my support for it, but I am sure you can see how abuses like this make it harder for us to accept and defend the idea. I hope in this specific instance, and in any similar instance in the future, your agency will exercise restraint and discretion. To do otherwise may, I think, undermine congressional support for the whole entire idea of sovereignty. What is the current thinking on that little piece of property? Mr. McCaleb. Congressman, as I understand it, there is considerable dissention within the seven tribes about the conversion of the use of the land from a clinic facility to a gaming facility. However, the issue before us is not the change in land use of that particular property; they have the authority to do it, as I understand it. What they have done, the tribe that is promoting the gaming facility wants to build a substitute clinic on an alternative site which they have bought in fee-simple and want us to take into trust. That is the issue that is really before us. Mr. Cannon. I recognize the importance of that issue and hope you will be thoughtful in the process. If I could move to another question that I think Congressman Otter was going to address, and I do not know that one as well, but apparently you have an issue regarding contacts by Park Place with the White House. Apparently, in June 2000, the CEO and general counsel of Park Place held a 1- hour private meeting with Vice President Gore at the Pierre Hotel. Are you familiar with this issue? Mr. McCaleb. I am not familiar with those circumstances, no, sir. Mr. Cannon. This is the issue of the Mohawk tribal---- Mr. McCaleb. I am familiar with the St. Regis Mohawk controversy involving Park Place, yes. Mr. Cannon. Are you familiar with the article in the Boston Globe on October 30, 2001, that lays out a history of what they call improper contacts? Mr. McCaleb. No, sir. I have not read that. Mr. Cannon. I will make that part of the record and get that to you. Mr. Ose. Without objection. Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.038 Mr. Cannon. Would you please enumerate, and I suspect you cannot do that here, but you would look for and communicate back to the committee all the communications between the BIA and the White House, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Committee, or the DCCC, the Congressional Committee, relating to the dismissal of the Ransom v. Babbitt appeal or issuance of the Anderson letter? Mr. McCaleb. Yes, sir, as directed. Mr. Cannon. And would you also consider whether the content of the Anderson letter was subjected to the review practices and procedures of the BIA? What is the legal status of the Anderson letter at this time, do you happen to know? Mr. McCaleb. No, sir, I do not. Mr. Cannon. OK. And then finally, if you could---- Mr. McCaleb. I am advised that there is extensive litigation on this issue. Mr. Cannon. Yes, there has been a great deal. Although I am not so much interested in litigation as in the BIA's practices, and not your practices under your direction, but its historic practices. Mr. McCaleb. I understand. Mr. Cannon. And finally, does the BIA recognize the Mohawk tribal court created under the Judiciary Act of 1994 by the former three chief government? That may not be a question that you can answer here either. But if you would take a look at that, I would appreciate it. Mr. McCaleb. I would rather respond to that question in writing. Mr. Cannon. OK. Thank you. I will get with Mr. Calvert and make sure he has copies of these questions. And we will make a copy of this article available for the record and get a copy of that article to Mr. Calvert also. Mr. McCaleb. Very well. Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. McCaleb. I appreciate your attention. You have got a very difficult job where lots of money is pushing lots of different ways and you have got the interests of real human beings who suffer or not depending upon decisions that you make. I do not begrudge you that job. I wish you the best and hope you feel our support here in difficult circumstances. Mr. McCaleb. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. I want to ask a few more questions that are more basic to this issue. Mr. Toulou, I have looked at the statute conferring the tribal recognition process on the Assistant Secretary, or at least on the BIA, and I am still confused. What is the statutory basis on which Congress has conferred this authority to some other party? Mr. Toulou. I think the statutory basis would be 25 USC 2 and 9. And in shorthand, 25 USC conveys upon the Assistant Secretary the management of Indian affairs, and 25 USC 9, if I am not incorrect, would allow him to promulgate regulations in furtherance of that responsibility. There are a large number of statutes and regulations that require there be recognized tribes to carry out the duties, provide resources and services to the tribes. And so I think as a necessary reaction to those statutory provisions, 2 and 9 allows the Secretary to promulgate the regulations. Mr. Ose. The reason I asked the question is in your testimony you cited a 1994 law passed by Congress to have the Secretary of the Interior publish a list of federally recognized tribes. But the BIA's regulations were promulgated in 1978. I am trying to figure out how the 1994 List Act gives the authority to the Secretary. Mr. Toulou. I do not think the 1994 List Act does give the authority. It provides weight to that authority. But that authority obviously pre-exists and I think it pre-exists the regulations that were promulgated in 1978. It is just at that point in time the Department took it upon themselves to regularize and codify those procedures. Mr. Ose. So it is not the List Act that you are relying on? Mr. Toulou. No. And if you would like, we certainly can provide more in-depth analysis in writing. Mr. Ose. So you are saying that it is not a separate constitutional power vested in the administration to recognize these tribes; it is a statutory power given to them by Congress. Mr. Toulou. Certainly, the power is delegated by Congress. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to this more fully. Mr. Ose. All right. You can understand I am trying to get to the heart of---- Mr. Toulou. I do understand. I think there is definitely the delegation to do that. But let me respond more fully in writing. Mr. Ose. All right. Mr. McCaleb, there is a statement in your testimony, ``The existing criteria should not be diluted in an attempt to quicken the pace of the process,'' meaning the recognition process. Mr. McCaleb. Correct. Mr. Ose. What do you mean when you say ``diluted''? Mr. McCaleb. I do not think we should eliminate any of the seven mandatory criteria that are currently in place because they have been applied for some time and that is the basis on which tribes have been recognized. I think that they are objective criteria that can be fairly interpreted. Mr. Ose. Do all of the criteria have to be met in the judgment of the administration, or a preponderance of them? Mr. McCaleb. All of them. Mr. Ose. All of them. Mr. McCaleb. All seven. Mr. Ose. Now has that been the history of this since 1978 that all of them have to be met? Mr. McCaleb. I do not know about since 1978, but in the last decade. Mr. Ose. The reason I asked that question is I read the same articles in part cited by Mr. Cannon, and it appeared to me that in some instances the Assistant Secretary in the previous administration had waived certain requirements. Is that accurate? Mr. McCaleb. That is accurate. The Assistant Secretary has waived in the past some of these requirements. That has not been the case in this administration. Mr. Ose. It would seem to me that, in effect, would be a new rule then in terms of tradition and practice, if not case law or standing, that instead of having to meet all of the criteria, you only had to meet a set number of them. Has the BIA looked at that in terms of complying with the due process requirements when you change a rule? Mr. McCaleb. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Ose. I see my time has expired. We are joined by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. Would you care to take a moment? No? Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. McCaleb, I would like to just kind of conclude my concern and have you tell me if it is off- base and then what the solution is. And I state up front, I think you are running a Department that is woefully underfunded in so many different ways and I think you could almost fund any part of it more and deservedly so. So we are not going to have a debate about that. But I am going to just take one part, and that is the recognition part. My understanding is there are about 550 recognized tribes in the United States right now, some really big ones and obviously some very small ones. And it is my understanding that there are over 200 groups in various stages of application within the BIA. Mr. McCaleb. There are 171 petitions, I think. Mr. Shays. OK, 171. How many of those are at a point where you can review their application? Mr. McCaleb. There are 23. Mr. Shays. Twenty-three that are kind of active. Mr. McCaleb. Yes. Mr. Shays. OK. And of those 23, how long does it take and how many people have to get involved in reviewing this application? This is obviously not a 4-month process. It takes a year of totally dedicated time on the part of staff, or what? Mr. McCaleb. Well it takes about 2 years under optimum circumstances to process an application, and that means to gather the necessary evidence if that information is fairly available. Mr. Shays. And how many people have to devote their time during that 2 years? Mr. McCaleb. We have two teams of three members and then we have some administrative staff. Mr. Shays. So you have two teams. And how many reviews can a team do in the course of a year? Mr. McCaleb. It depends upon the application. The history has been somewhere between three and four are completed, because they are working on some of them concurrently. Mr. Shays. Right. So, basically, each team can make a decision on about three a year. Mr. McCaleb. No. I probably misstated that. Mr. Shays. I do not mind if you want to consult someone, because I realize there may be someone who would have more. Take your time. Mr. McCaleb. Mr. Fleming corrected me. He said one team will get about one decision a year, or the two teams we have will get two decisions per year. Mr. Shays. How many new cases will be ready for disposition in the course of a year? You have lots of applications. How many more will be ready to go in the next year? Mr. McCaleb. Is the question over and above the 23, how many we anticipate? Mr. Shays. Exactly. We are going to dispose of two, but how many more will be put in the in box? Mr. McCaleb. Mr. Fleming advises me that for the last year we have not had any petitioning group complete their applications. Mr. Shays. How many are waiting for completion? Mr. McCaleb. There are 23. Mr. Shays. No. There are 23 that are waiting for disposition. Mr. McCaleb. Yes. Mr. Shays. How many are in the process looking to---- Mr. McCaleb. We have 171, but maybe all they have done is sent a letter in that says, ``We think we are a tribe.'' Mr. Shays. No. I do not want that answer because that is not accurate. Not all 171 have sent in a letter. You have some that have been there for years with work in process, with folders that would fill cabinets. Mr. McCaleb. There are 65 partially documented. Mr. Shays. So it is very likely that you are going to get at least two more in the next year. So we are going to lose ground, not gain ground, correct? That is pretty clear. People are nodding their head behind you. We are going to lose ground, not gain ground. Mr. McCaleb. I think that is a reasonable assumption, yes. Mr. Shays. Now the problem I have is you have well-paid attorneys backing up these applications who are going to court and they are making the argument before the court that your agency is not properly disposing of these cases and denying them their rights. And you have got a lot of inpatient judges. For instance, in Connecticut we have the Golden Hill Paugusetts that have laid claim on practically half my district, the district I represent, and we have a judge who is beginning to believe that he may have to take unilateral action because the Bureau is not doing its job. What is the solution in a case like that? Mr. McCaleb. We will have to have additional personnel in order to dispose of these cases that are pending more rapidly. Mr. Shays. I would like to make this request if I could through you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know specifically how many cases are active; how many cases are potential--you have answered them but I would like it in writing; how many more we think will be added in the next few years and what we think the gain or loss in terms of cases will be; and how long it will take to do the potential number that exist out there. We have had others who have expressed those opinions. I would like to know what you all feel. And then I want to know what the Department intends to do about it. And it cannot be that we are not going to do anything. Mr. McCaleb. We will respond to that question in writing, Congressman. Mr. Shays. All right. In my next round I would love to ask the other two witnesses to comment on these questions. Thank you. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shays has asked a lot of the questions that I was going to ask. But what I am wondering about is are you going to try to speed up this process any or is there any plan? I am not saying speed up approval. Sometimes some of these groups maybe should be turned down. But we have seen over the past several years a judge with one law clerk can look at this material and make decisions within weeks or months. And you have got all these bureaucrats down there working on this, supposedly, and they cannot make a decision in years. Something is wrong. Something is wrong with that. So it looks to me like this whole process needs to be speeded up, and it could be. I bet if you were being paid like real estate agents and you would not be paid unless you made a sale, if you were being paid on the basis of getting this work done, these approvals and disapprovals would be coming out very, very quickly and they would not be sitting around for years. Mr. Ose. Would the gentleman yield on that? Mr. Duncan. Yes. Mr. Ose. I do not think we want to pay on a commission basis here. [Laughter.] Mr. Duncan. Well, I am just saying that if they were being paid on the amount of work that was being produced, these files would not be sitting around all this time. I think you should be very embarrassed to be up here and tell us. I am not saying all of these should be approved. People can rationalize or justify anything and if you do not have enough work, maybe that is the problem, maybe there is not enough work and so you are trying to drag out the work that you have. I have a hard time understanding when I am told that you have got some of these applications that have been sitting around for years and then you tell Congressman Shays, the impression I get, that you do not have any intention or plan to speed up this process at all. I think it is ridiculous. Mr. McCaleb. No, I did not mean to convey that. In fact, I said we would have a strategic plan by the middle of April that defines what the need is for total human resources and financial resources in order to expedite the plan. Mr. Duncan. I see that there are 559 tribes. It seems to me like there are almost more tribes now than there were when we just had Native Americans here in this country. I guess some of these people would not even be applying if there were not a financial incentive to do so. But I am wondering, I see where a couple of the tribes are huge but then there is one tribe that is as small as like one family. Do you ever have any of these tribes that are de-listed or de-certified or that go out of existence? Mr. McCaleb. Yes. That has happened in the past. In fact, about 1978 I think is when the first list of federally recognized tribes was published and there were some tribes that were not listed at that point and have since made application to be acknowledged as a tribe. There were 220-odd tribes recognized at one time when the Alaskan villages were all federally recognized as tribes in the earlier part of the last decade. Mr. Duncan. All right. Well we have got a couple of votes going on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. We do have two votes that are scheduled. We have got 7 minutes left on this vote. One is for passage and I do not know what the other one is. We are going to recess and come back. I do not know what the status on the second vote is. Typically, it is a 5-minute vote. So this might be 10, 15 minutes. I have some questions also. So we are going to go ahead and recess. Appreciate your patience. [Recess.] Mr. Ose. We are going to reconvene here. I have a number of questions here. I want to start with Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill, the same question I put to Mr. Toulou having to do with the manner in which these recognitions transpire in terms of the seven criteria. If the practice is that the applicant tribe has to meet the seven criteria and then the process changes so that you no longer have to meet the seven criteria but some can be waived, is that in effect a rule that has to go through due process? Mr. Hill. Well, the process calls for meeting all seven criteria. Under the current process, the Assistant Secretary has the discretion of granting recognition even if the criteria are not met. That is just the way this process has been set up and has been carried out. Mr. Ose. In effect, we have set up a system then that allows significant variability in how this or that band or tribe or group might seek recognition; is that what you are saying? Mr. Hill. There appears to be variability not only outside the process, but even within the process there has been what appear to be a number of inconsistencies in terms of whether criteria have been met or not. Some of these criteria are very difficult to document and provide evidence over the many years that they have to basically show proof or evidence that they have met these criteria. Mr. Ose. Well, as you might imagine, my concern is that the process not be arbitrary or capricious. Yet what you are describing for me is a system that offers ample opportunity, absent someone of extremely high moral standards, for an arbitrary or capricious decision. Am I missing something here? Mr. Hill. I do not think you could ever devise a process that is going to be black or white, yes or no. There is a lot of judgment that has to be rendered on these petitions individually. And here again, most of the controversy, most of the concern focuses on is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the criteria has been met? In most of the cases the key factor here is proving or demonstrating continued existence over this entire period of time. There has been a recent case where there was a gap in terms of the petitioner being able to prove existence over a 70 year period. When things like this occur, the BAR staff say they rely on precedence, they look back at precedence to determine whether or not prior decisions have rendered the recognition or not rendered it. In this particular case, the BAR felt that with this 70 year period, they proposed that the tribe not be recognized. The Assistant Secretary looked at the same evidence and basically concluded that there was sufficient evidence in his mind that the criteria had been met and he basically proposed that the recognition be given to the tribe. So there are a lot of judgments that are being exercised here. Mr. Ose. So we had a factual, presumably factual, conclusion on staff's part that one of the seven criteria had not been met, and then we had an over-rule as to whether or not that was an acceptable piece to this application? Mr. Hill. That is correct. And the difference of opinion, if I could expand---- Mr. Ose. But before you leave that point---- Mr. Hill. Sure. Mr. Ose. I am looking at a list of the criteria for tribal recognition, the seven items. And what you are suggesting is that some are more important than the others. But I do not see any delineation of priority within statute or regulation. Mr. Hill. No. I did not say some are more important than others. All of them under the process need to be met. But there are a few of the criteria that it is just very difficult to demonstrate that the criteria has been met. And it all deals with the sufficiency of evidence. Mr. Ose. Right. My time has expired. I am going to go to Mr. Shays for 5 minutes. Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hill, let me continue with you or Mr. Toulou, either one of you. I would like you to respond to the questions that I was asking Mr. McCaleb. I would like to know your sense of what you are hearing and what it means. Mr. Hill. I am sorry, could you repeat the question. Mr. Shays. Sure. I asked Mr. McCaleb a number of questions. You were sitting right next to him. I want to know, you were hearing these answers, you are head of the GAO, I want to know what that told you. What did you learn from the discussion that we had? Mr. Hill. Well, if I may go first, I think Mr. McCaleb realizes he has got a problem here in terms of being able to effectively and efficiently implement this process. We are encouraged that he agreed with the findings we had in our report, which basically indicated that these problems focused on the need for guidance or guidelines to interpret various aspects of the criteria, as well as providing sufficient resources so that they can process these petitions more efficiently and effectively. Mr. Shays. Speak to the last one. How will he have more resources if he does not ask for them? Mr. Hill. Well, I would defer to Mr. McCaleb on that. I am encouraged from the standpoint---- Mr. Shays. No. No. I am sorry, that is just not going to hold. You have made a report about the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they commented on it, and your answer to me was really what he said to you in your report. Is it not meaningless to say they agree with the report if they are not going to ask for the people necessary to do the job? Does it not make it almost absurd? Can he do the job without the people? Mr. Hill. He cannot do the job any better than they are doing it now unless there are more people added. That is right. Mr. Shays. Right. Are things getting better or are they getting worse? Mr. Hill. Things are getting worse. Mr. Shays. OK. So it is really bad now and things are getting worse. Mr. Hill. Correct. Mr. Shays. And you have told me he agrees with your report. And you have just heard him say basically under oath that he did not request--it is not necessary it was under oath, that is disingenuous, I apologize--but you basically heard him respond to our questioning that basically said that he has other priorities and that he did not request any more personnel. How will he get the job done if he does not have more personnel? Mr. Hill. He will have a difficult time getting the job done better. There are things that could be done to improve the efficiency, but he will need more resources. But with that said, I must defer from the standpoint we did not do an audit of the prioritization of resources for the entire BIA. Mr. McCaleb is dealing with a lot of significant Indian issues right now. I am encouraged by the fact---- Mr. Shays. How is that relevant to what we are talking about? Asking for something does not mean you get it. But how does his superior know you need it if you do not ask for it? Mr. Hill. I would agree with you there. Hopefully, in the plan that they are coming out with in April, our understanding is that will be covered in this plan and they will identify what the resource needs are. Mr. Shays. Let me ask you something. Based on your report, which they agreed with, did they have to wait till April to know they need more people? Mr. Hill. No. They should have known that. Mr. Shays. OK. And they in fact do know it. So there is nothing that prevented them from asking for more people. Now I might have to go up the chain of command to find out where it stopped, and, in the end, I might have to come up to the chain of command where it stopped in Congress because the administration did their job and asked for the resources necessary and Congress did not do its job in giving the resources it needs. But right now, if the person in charge is going not to ask for it, we are going to have a big problem. So, the bottom line to your testimony is that you believe they need more people. Correct? Mr. Hill. That is correct. Mr. Shays. OK. And without more people, things will get worse rather than better as it relates to the recognition process and the ability to bring down the numbers? Mr. Hill. Yes. That is correct. Mr. Shays. Mr. Toulou, I am getting you a little out of your territory here and you are another department, so I am not going to ask you quite the same question. You do not have oversight of this office, is that correct? Mr. Toulou. That is correct. Mr. Shays. Tell me what your role is in terms of oversight. Basically, it is only those Indian tribes that are federally recognized? Mr. Toulou. That is correct. Mr. Shays. Right. So all the applicants you basically have no contact with, right? Mr. Toulou. They might at one time. I have not had any contact with them. Mr. Shays. No. I understand. OK. Mr. Toulou. Generally, no. Generally, our relationship is with federally recognized tribes pursuant to the government to government relationship. Mr. Shays. Mr. McCaleb, what are we going to expect when you do this report that is coming out in April? Is this going to be a strategic plan for your entire office? Mr. McCaleb. No. It is the strategic plan as it relates to the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research. Mr. Shays. So it is just the recognition side? Mr. McCaleb. Yes. It deals directly with the content of the GAO report. Mr. Shays. OK. I want to compliment you for the fact that you have come into a traumatized agency and I understand that you have had to look at a lot of decisions that were made by the previous administration. What are you doing to ensure that the political process of who gave what contribution to whom will have no impact on the recognition process? Mr. McCaleb. First of all, I have tried to insulate myself from that information so that there can be no question about whether or not my office is influenced. If you do not know, then you obviously cannot be influenced. Mr. Shays. Good enough. Mr. McCaleb. But much greater than that, I think we are developing a pretty high standard of objective evaluation of these criteria and are trying to adhere to that. I am personally not becoming involved with the petitioners so that I do not unduly have myself influenced or prejudiced before I get the report from the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I just have one 5 minute more segment. Should I---- Mr. Ose. That will be fine. We will come around again. Mr. Shays. OK. Good. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Shays. I am going to ask a couple of questions regarding unfunded mandates. Mr. Hill, Mr. Simmons testified about significant frustration at the State and local level in terms of being able to participate in the process. In the GAO's review of the process, did you find any concerns about how the Bureau dealt with State or local government? Mr. Hill. Well, the way the process currently works now, the public really does not have a lot of access to the process until after the BAR has a proposed finding and it is published in the Federal Register. Then the public has so many days in which to analyze the information that is put out and give their input to the process. Well, in a lot of cases, that timing is too late in the process. So the public wants to access the process earlier and the way they do that is through Freedom of Information Act requests. Mr. Ose. What do you mean, ``it is too late in the process''? Mr. Hill. Well, with the amount of information that has to be considered, and with the difficulty of getting some of that information, it is not that readily available, you have to get it through the BIA, the people we spoke to, the State and local communities that we spoke to basically felt that they did not have sufficient time that late in the process to really do the job they needed to do, do the analysis they needed to do and get their comments in. So, to intervene earlier in the process, they basically go through the Freedom of Information Act process to request information from BIA. And this complicates the problem, because now you have got the BAR staff, that is already understaffed, over-worked, being pulled off and responding to these Freedom of Information Act requests on a case-by-case basis and having to deal with that process and get that information out to the public. So it is a very inefficient process. And I could see where the State and local communities are being frustrated in terms of like they feel they are being shut out of the front end of this process. Mr. Ose. Within the process itself, is there some prohibition on involving State or local government at an earlier stage? Mr. Hill. I believe that was imposed by BIA as part of the---- Mr. McCaleb. If that is the case, it happened prior to this administration. Mr. Keep. The regulations actually provide for giving notice to the State and the Attorney General when the petition is received. Connecticut has a particular problem in that they have counties and they may not get the information from the State. Mr. McCaleb. This is Mr. Scott Keep from the Solicitor's Office at the Department of the Interior. Mr. Ose. I appreciate it. I am going to note for the record that you were sworn in also at the same time. Is that accurate? Mr. Keep. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ose. Many of these applications are received years before a decision is finally announced or published. I am trying to figure out what is the constraint here on State and local government participating? I mean, a FOIA is a pretty aggressive action. It is kind of like I have reached the end of my rope or I am pulling the last of my hair out, so to speak. Mr. Hill. I think it is a question of what information from the petitioner is available when in the process. And I believe the bulk of the information from the petitioner is not available until the proposed finding has been published in the Federal Register. Mr. Ose. Is that accurate, Mr. McCaleb or Mr. Keep? Mr. Keep, if you would like to join us up here at the table. Mr. McCaleb. That is not my impression. Scott. Mr. Keep. Mr. Chairman, no, I think the information is available, except the information with regard to genealogy, of course, is very private and is not available. Much of the other information is available; if they were to get a Freedom of Information Act request, as Mr. Hill has indicated, it would divert the staff from processing the petition. Mr. Ose. Do the FOIA requests---- Mr. Shays. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I do not think he is getting picked up on the recorder. Maybe he will identify himself. Mr. Ose. He has, it is Mr. Scott Keep. Mr. Shays. The recorder is not picking it up. I am sorry to interrupt, but we are having a problem. Mr. Ose. All right. Let's go through this again. Identify yourself, tell us you have been sworn, and then answer the question. Mr. Keep. Mr. Chairman, my name is Scott Keep. I am an attorney with the Department of the Interior and I have been sworn to tell the truth and the whole truth. Mr. Ose. All right. Now the question is, what is the prohibition on having State and local participate? The feedback has been, your testimony has been that the genealogical information, in particular, is very private, that some of the information is received incrementally. Mr. Keep. Correct. There is no statutory or regulatory prohibition other than the constraints of the Freedom of Information Act on releasing information that would be an intrusion on an individual's privacy and the Privacy Act. But there are practical implications because the information being received by the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research comes in over a period of time and at different times, and the petitioners are not required to notify other people, and we are not required to notify potentially interested parties as each additional installment is received. Mr. Ose. The only requirement for notification is the publication in the Federal Register. Mr. Keep. Correct. Prior to the issuance of the proposed finding. Mr. Ose. Right. My time has expired. Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Hopefully, this can be my last round. I just want to say that I consider myself a real ally with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on this one regard. I believe that tribes should go through the recognition process of the Bureau and that the Bureau needs to do its job. There are only two things that I fear. One is that we will by-pass the process through legislation on the floor of the House. So I have literally come to Washington on those days when that legislation comes up to oppose recognition on the floor and asking for a roll call vote. I want to make sure that whatever tribe is recognized goes through a fair process. Absolutely essential that be the case. And then if they are recognized, they deserve all the rights and privileges, whatever they may be. The other thing I fear is that which happened under the previous administration. Campaign contributions started to be donated and then we were hearing from the professionals that recommendations they had made were getting changed, distorted, as the result of who the applicant was and how much they contribute. And I think that story is fully documented. So, Mr. McCaleb, you impressed me that your interest was to make sure that the process be fair and that politics would stay out. What I want to ask you for the record is, have you been told by anyone of any contribution being donated by an applicant for recognition? Mr. McCaleb. No. Mr. Shays. OK. And if that were to be said to you in a way that was suggesting that was important in terms of your recognition process, you had told me that you would go and tell the Secretary that you had been told this and thought it was inappropriate. I want to know if that is still your position. Mr. McCaleb. That is correct. Mr. Shays. OK. And I have total confidence that is the case. Now the only other thing then that would concern me, I should have said three things, and that is that the court may decide that your agency has not been able to do its job and they may arbitrarily recognize a tribe. My understanding is that basically the criteria can be ignored, you can ignore it. I am concerned that the court could order you to recognize a tribe based on a whole host of other factors. And that is why I am trying to put in context my concern about why I think this is so essential that you get the resources necessary so no court can say you just are not able to do the job and we are going to step in. I am trying to give you a little understanding of that concern. It is my understanding that you, later than I want, will be reevaluating your needs. And is my understanding correct that whatever your needs are you will convey them to your superiors and document that in writing? Mr. McCaleb. That is correct. I did not intend to convey that we were not going to ask for additional personnel in the future. I think our April strategic report will have a work force element in it that will show a need for a substantial increase in personnel. Mr. Shays. But you understand my concern. You have missed the budget year, so we are talking about not this October but you would be talking about the October a year from now. Mr. McCaleb. That is correct. Mr. Shays. And that could be deadly. And that is why you see a concern on my part. Mr. McCaleb. Well, we will have this report and the number that is requested is an additional 22, more than doubling, more than tripling, it is almost tripling our staff. Mr. Shays. And you may have to, it appears, if you are not getting the applicants, it may be that you are going to have to find ways to pay them more. Mr. McCaleb. Well, that is problematical because those jobs carry certain GS ratings, of course. Mr. Shays. I know. And I am suggesting to you that you reevaluate the job rating. These are people that are basically determining who is going to be a billionaire, because it is going to be based on their research and work. You need people who are paid a wage that I think will be able to confront the lawyers who may in fact force them to come in and respond to their recommendations in court. They need to be very capable people. Mr. McCaleb. Another alternative that we have been evaluating is outsourcing some of this activity. But there are certain inherent risks in that and the duration that it takes does not lend itself very well to outsourcing. However, we are looking at outsourcing some segments of the work in order to magnify our capability. Mr. Shays. I would just like to make one suggestion, ultimately. I think what Congress should basically be doing is that we should make a requirement that all potential applicants who are in the pipeline now or perceive that they may want to be an applicant in the years to come, that we set a deadline for all applicants and once that deadline is passed no more applicants can come. Then we look at whatever number we have, figure out what resources we need to plow through that, and then just do it. I know that is not your responsibility. But I am just telling you kind of where I am coming from as someone who has watched this process for many, many years and is very concerned about it. I thank the chairman for his graciousness in letting me have more time. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Mr. Toulou, if I may, I understand Congress can recognize a group as a tribe, and I believe through the process BIA can recognize a group as a tribe. Can the courts do it also? Mr. Toulou. That is an interesting question. I was thinking through it as Mr. Shays asked it. I have serious reservations whether a court could unilaterally recognize a tribe. That being said, I think that overseeing an individual agency action or congressional action, the court might be able to drive certain portions, moving it along on a timetable or something of that sort. I think it would be very factually specific on a given case to say how much involvement the court could have in the recognition process. Mr. Ose. All right. So we do not know the answer to that question. We do not know whether a court could or could not. I mean, in effect, you are saying a court could by driving the process. Mr. Toulou. Well I think the court could be involved in the process. I do not think a court could just pick a group unilaterally and say, OK, you group of allegedly indigenous people are now a tribe. That is reserved to the Congress and the Indian Commerce Clause. I do not think that is constitutionally a power of the courts, no. But they could be involved in the process, yes, I think so. Mr. Ose. I do not know who to ask this question of. How many tribes were here prior to the white man? Mr. McCaleb. Well, in that there was no written historical record, that is a little difficult to estimate. Mr. Ose. Well you can see where my question goes. Mr. McCaleb. Yes. I understand. What we have to do in this process though is determine if these tribes were an indigenous people that have existed for a long time and whether they had a continuous government influencing the membership of that tribe, not just a community of people who have decided that they probably had indigenous roots and claim sovereign status. Because the relationship, as I understand it, and I am not a lawyer, but the relationship is with the United States, by virtue of the Constitution Act and the Non-Intercourse Act which regulates transactions with Indians, the special relationship is with those sovereign tribes that existed at those early times of our Government. And to my knowledge, nobody has ever quantified precisely what that is. We do know the tribes that we had treaties with and arrangements with. Mr. Ose. All right. And how many? Do we know what the number was there? Mr. McCaleb. I do not off the top of my head, no. I'm sorry. Mr. Ose. Let me go on with my questions. Recognition of a tribe in a given geographic area confers status, any number of things. For the last year, Interior Secretary Norton has been advocating a philosophy at DOI focused on what she calls the ``four Cs,'' which are consultation, cooperation, and communication, all in the service of conservation; those being the four Cs. Does this philosophy of consultation, cooperation, and communication extend beyond conservation to Indian affairs as well? Mr. McCaleb. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman. There is an Executive Order that mandates consultation with tribes on any Federal action that may impact the tribe or tribes. Mr. Ose. What about local government? Mr. McCaleb. There is no mandate because there is not a government-to-government relationship and the Bureau of Indian Affairs' relationship is exclusively with federally recognized tribes. Mr. Ose. What I hear loud and clear, both from Mr. Simmons and Mr. Shays, is that somehow or another we have got to get these lines of communication open so that we can have more local or State involvement in the process in addressing whatever might be coming up or coming down the pike on tribal recognition application. So that is why I asked about the consultation issue, in particular. I asked earlier is there a prohibition, is there a requirement for consultation? Mr. McCaleb. With local governments? Mr. Ose. Yes. Local or State. Mr. McCaleb. No. Mr. Ose. There is neither a prohibition nor a requirement? Mr. McCaleb. No. Mr. Ose. So that might be one area---- Mr. McCaleb. Just a moment. He is making the point that we have to give notice. That is not consultation. Mr. Ose. But the notice is published in the Federal Register and what have you. Mr. McCaleb. Right. In a local newspaper also. Mr. Ose. Well, in 1995 Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and one of the principal goals of that Act was to ensure that the State and local governments are consulted before agencies issue mandates. Is recognition of a tribe a mandate? From a legal standpoint, Mr. Toulou, is recognition of a tribe a Government mandate? Mr. Toulou. I do not know for purposes of that particular bill whether it is a mandate. It certainly is a governmental action. I am just not familiar with the Unfunded Mandate Act. It is not an area of my expertise. Mr. Ose. Well, the Act specifies that ``before establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agencies shall develop a plan to enable small governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of the regulatory proposal.'' So, if recognition of a tribe is mandated by a Federal agency action and has consequence in a local jurisdiction, how can the agency not comply with the Unfunded Mandates Act? Mr. Toulou. Without studying the Act further, it strikes me that act is designed to deal with legislation that deals specifically with that community. And while this may be an incidental impact, I am not sure how the Act and the judicial history of the Act afterwards balances incidental impacts. That would be my concern in answering that, whether or not this is a direct impact or an incidental impact and how much the bill is intended to deal with those incidental impacts. Mr. Ose. Mr. McCaleb, has the agency had any deliberation on this as to whether or not Unfunded Mandates Act applies to the recognition of a tribe? Mr. McCaleb. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Ose. All right. So in terms of recognition of a tribe, are you aware of any plan at BIA for providing what I would call meaningful and timely input prior to publication in the Federal Register on a regular basis from local or State governments into the process? Mr. McCaleb. In other areas, yes, there is. Under active consideration right now, and it is very controversial, it has to do with the other major step of creating the territory of the tribe or taking land into trust status. We withdrew a new Federal regulation on this and published our intent to include a provision for notification to local governments when land is taken into trust outside of the existing reservation boundaries. That regulation has not been promulgated nor reviewed or commented on, but we have published our intent to do that. Mr. Ose. The publication says it is the intention of the agency to notice local and State governments at such time as land outside the historical---- Mr. McCaleb. The intent was not that specific. It just said that if the land is proposed to be taken into trust outside of the reservation boundaries, it shall not adversely impact those communities. It does specify tests for evidence for both the tribe wishing to take land into trust and for the community who opposes it for whatever reason. Mr. Ose. This is kind of the intersection of Federal, State, and local law. Mr. McCaleb. It is, absolutely. Mr. Ose. This is the area I find most interesting. Because if either Congress or the agency confers tribal status on a group, then subsequent to that new tribe goes out and seeks to have land taken into trust on their behalf, that land may well be off the historical reservation but in the middle of an urban area, in which case a local government, depending on the State, may then be faced with a decision as to whether or not to allow the development of that property in whatever fashion. You can see my unfunded mandates issue. Mr. McCaleb. Absolutely. Yes. Mr. Ose. It is just a very ticklish question between Federal, State, and local government as to who has got control over that land. So I am asking again, what means of consultation exists? Mr. McCaleb. Well, I think that is what I am trying to respond to you. I am saying that one of the reasons that rule was withdrawn was to try to provide that method of notification and consultation between the community and the tribe to create some level of consensus on how that land was to be utilized. That is very controversial in the Indian community, it is also controversial in the non-Indian community, and it will be a subject of considerable discussion as those rules are promulgated. But it is right on point of the issue that you are raising. Mr. Ose. Do you have any idea on the schedule when that revised proposal will appear in the Federal Register? Mr. McCaleb. We had it scheduled before now, but we are involved in an extensive consultation schedule on the proposed reorganization of the trust asset management activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs that has kept me on the road every week for the last 7 weeks. So it will probably be sometime later on this spring. I am sorry to be indefinite, but we do not have a specific date. Mr. Ose. All right. Hold on a minute. As you might have noticed, a number of Members from across the country have very specific interests here on this issue of tribal recognition. Given the time, what I would like to do is I want to go ahead and complete the hearing. But we have a lot of questions that did not get asked. So we are going to leave the record open for a period of time, 10 days. We are going to send you some questions subsequent to that time period, we hope you would answer in a timely fashion, and they might be technical, they might be very specific in terms of individual Members' districts, but we would appreciate your cooperation. We look forward to your responses. I do want to say I have learned an enormous amount. Normally, these things are somewhat dreary or dull. But I have learned an incredible amount today, and I appreciate you guys taking the time to come down and visit with us. This falls under the jurisdiction of this committee and we will be revisiting it. So, again, I thank you for testifying. I look forward to working with you in the future. Mr. McCaleb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ose. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] [The prepared statement of Hon. John J. Duncan and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 84231.165 -