Facebook Twitter Email
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003

The following is the floor statement of Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) on the introduction of S.175, the Indian Trust Asset and Trust Fund Management and Reform Act of 2003.

Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in re-introducing legislation that will focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem of mismanagement of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally-recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians.

This is a problem that has festered for far too long outside the spotlight of public recognition. And it is a problem that is undermining urgently needed efforts to improve the quality of life in Indian Country.

Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have been more important, or more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management.

For over a hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust fund funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians.

To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts.

How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being litigated in Cobell v. Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian Country. It is foolhardy not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this lawsuit.

There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question has always been how to reform it.

In November 2001, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled her controversial plan to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and segregate the oversight and accounting of trust-related assets in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM). In testimony before the U.S. District Court, the Secretary acknowledged that, "We undoubtedly do have some missing data -- and we are all going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that some information no longer exists."

The Secretary’s controversial reorganization proposal, a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court, was presented with minimal consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account holders, not to mention Congress.

In South Dakota, tribal leaders communicated to Tim Johnson and me their concern that the Secretary’s solution appeared to be a fait accompli, conceived without meaningful participation of the stakeholders most directly affected by it. They felt strongly that this proposal should not be implemented without further consultation with the tribes. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary on Indian Affairs, despite their reorganization plan, were both subsequently found in contempt of court.

In the early months of 2002, in the face of Administration assurances that its reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior Department requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million from the Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to "a single organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant Secretary, Indian Trust." This contradiction set off red flags in Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan administratively. Notwithstanding this clear signal, just this last December, while most members of Congress were out of town and with very little fanfare, the Secretary submitted yet another smaller request to reprogram BIA funds for trust fund reform activities.

Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson and I feel that Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussion of what role Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our hope that this bill will promote more constructive dialogue among the Congress, the Interior Department and Indian Country on this problem and lead to a true consensus solution.

With that goal in mind, the bill was reviewed by representatives of the Great Plains tribes last Congress at a meeting in Rapid City. And earlier today, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association urged me to re-introduce this legislation in the new Congress.

Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and member of the Secretary’s Trust Reform Task Force, has been an effective advocate and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all Indian people. He and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman and Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association President Tom Ranfranz led a very impressive and productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska. Mike and Tom have also worked with tribal leaders from Montana and Wyoming to raise awareness of the stakes of this issue and build support for the bill that regrettably died at the end of the 107th Congress due to Administration opposition.

I commend the willingness of these participating Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regional tribal leaders to be a part of a public process that will hopefully will not stop until Indian Country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-Johnson-Daschle bill is intended to contribute to this result.

At this point, I would like to remind my colleagues some initial observations on this proposal that were raised in the last Congress by participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions that are still relevant in the 108th Congress. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully Indian leaders are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect that their suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill moves through the committee process.

The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association:

Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent; They do not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and unified authority needed.

Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management purposes;

Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary;

Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereignty by interfering with tribal involvement in the management of individual trust assets or tribal assets, or both;

Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s role as an advocate for tribe;

Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment;

Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the legislation.

Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation;

Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding allow reform to succeed;

Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding needed for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and regional levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs;

Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resource managers, from the various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the advisory board to the Office of Trust Reform.

Mr. President, the issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts - some well intentioned and some clearly not - to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities.

These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the federal government’s treaty obligation to tribes.

I would be remiss if I did not commend this Administration for taking the time to travel to Indian Country to discuss this problem. Their interest in promoting dialogue with tribal leaders was welcome and appreciated. At the same time, however, talk must be supported by action if the trust management problem is to be successfully resolved.

The recent unveiling last month of the Department of Interior’s attempt to implement a trust reorganization plan without full tribal or congressional consultation in response to the Cobell vs. Norton case was appalling and an egregious act by the federal government to Indian stakeholders. One tribal task force member described Interior’s latest deceptive actions as "a sham." That sentiment is widespread in Indian Country and exacerbates an underlying frustration and disappointment that is both understandable and disconcerting.

I share this frustration and disappointment. And I am concerned that the progress made jointly last year could be washed away by a rising tide of disillusionment and mounting sense of betrayal.

The message I have heard from tribal leaders is clear. What is needed to achieve true trust reform are clear trust standards, one clear line of authority for trust management and the resources necessary to achieve meaningful reform, respect for self-determination, and meaningful consultation.

Meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status the critical starting point if we hope to find a workable solution to the very real problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain, Johnson and I are introducing today reflects this conviction.

There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the principles of self-determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets.

I am disappointed that this problem was not solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders in the last Congress. Yet, that fight is not over, and my commitment to my South Dakota tribal constituents and Indian Country on this important issue has not diminished.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leadership introduced its priority bills for the 108th Congress. I am proud that trust reform is included as part of our civil rights legislation.

An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialogue. The McCain/Johnson/Daschle bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, Administration officials and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.