[Senate Report 106-368]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 745
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-368
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RECONCILIATION PLACE IN FORT PIERRE,
SOUTH DAKOTA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000
_______
Mr. Campbell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1658]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 1658) to authorize the construction of the
Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
Purposes
The purpose of S. 1658, introduced by Senator Daschle on
September 29, 1999, and cosponsored by Senator Johnson, are (1)
to promote a better understanding of the history and culture of
the Sioux people, and by doing so, achieve better relations
between Indian and non-Indian peoples; (2) to promote economic
development on the reservations; (3) to establish a Sioux
Nation Supreme Court to help increase legal consistency among
the reservations, and thus create a legal environment more
conducive to business investment and to building respect for
the law; (4) to establish a training center to train tribal
personnel in conflict resolution and alternative dispute
resolution; and, (4) to locate all of these entities at a
single facility to minimize administrative and building costs.
To achieve these purposes, S. 1658 would authorize funds for
the construction of a multipurpose center to be known as
``Reconciliation Place'' in Pierre, South Dakota, at which
would be located and operated a Sioux Nation Supreme Court, at
which would be located and operated a Sioux Nation Supreme
Court, a National Native American Mediation Training Center, a
Native American Economic Development Council, and an Historical
Archive and Display Center.
Background and Need
In 1997, the chairmen of all nine South Dakota Sioux tribes
joined in a letter to Senator Daschle seeking assistance for
the Wakpa Sica Historical Society's efforts to develop plans
for construction and development of a ``Reconciliation Place''
with attending programs in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, on the
bank of the Missouri River where, in 1804, leaders of the Teton
Sioux Tribes first met representatives of the United States of
America--Meriwether Lewis and William Clark.
As envisioned by the Historical Society, a non-profit
community of tribal and non-tribal leaders dedicated to forging
understanding between tribal and non-tribal cultures, the focus
of the Reconciliation Place would be fostering awareness,
learning, understanding, and professional development in the
promotion of reconciliation between non-tribal people--most of
U.S. society--and tribal people or persons with Native American
ancestry. It would do so by pursuing three initiatives. One
initiative would be to create a center for tribal cultural
history and a Sioux Nations Archives, to display and interpret
tribal history, art, and culture for all visitors, to provide a
repository for tribal history and tribal members' family
histories, and to assist in the return of cultural and
spiritual artifacts to tribes under Federal law. The second
initiative would be to establish an interpretative center that
would feature the Sioux Nation's first encounter with
Americans--Lewis and Clark--and the economic history of the
Missouri River Valley, with emphasis on contrasting the
different economic systems indigenous to the tribes and to the
incoming U.S. citizens, and on illuminating the natural
misunderstanding and conflict that these differences prompted.
The third initiative would be to provide a home for a Sioux
Nation Tribal Supreme Court, which would provide additional
professional guidance and support for existing tribal local and
appellate courts in dealing with increasing caseloads
associated with the growth of tribal commerce, finance, and
economic development. This initiative reflects a consensus
among Sioux tribal leaders that a supreme court is key not only
to promoting tribal socio-economic well-being, but also
effective tribal government.
The establishment of the Wakapa Sica Historical Society and
a need for reconciliation between tribal and non-tribal peoples
is part of the legacy of the contentious and bitter history of
the United States' dealings with the Sioux Nation since the
time of Lewis and Clark. That legacy embraces a broad array of
economic, social, and governmental problems, including often
tense and uneasy race relations between Indians and non-Indians
in South Dakota, characterized by misunderstanding and
mistrust, and poor economic conditions on the reservations,
characterized by low per capital income rates and high
unemployment rates. To appreciate the need for reconciliation
in these circumstances, a brief summary of some of the more
notable events in the United States' dealings with the Sioux
Nation is necessary.
In 1803, President Jefferson commissioned the Lewis and
Clark expedition to explore the lands acquired through the
Louisiana Purchase. On September 24, 1804, Lewis and Clark
anchored their three riverboats where the Wakpa Sica, or Bad
River, flows into the Missouri River. The next day, half of the
party of 44 men landed on the west bank of the Missouri and
formally paraded on the river plain under the flag of the
United States. They then joined Chief Black Buffalo and braves
of the Teton Sioux for council in the chief's buffalo skin
lodge. This was one of the first meetings between
representatives of the Sioux tribes and representatives of the
United States.
In 1815, the United States entered into treaties with the
Dakota and Lakota tribes of the Sioux Nation, in which the
United States pledged to protect the tribes.\1\ In 1825, the
United States entered into treaties of peace, friendship and
commerce with the tribes of the Sioux Nation to promote the fur
trade and the safe passage of American citizens through Sioux
Nation territory.\2\ In 1851, to facilitate trade and reduce
intertribal conflict that sometimes threatened safe passage,
the United States entered into a treaty with the Sioux and
neighboring Indian tribes, which described their respective
aboriginal areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Teton (Lakota), 1815; 7 Stat. 125.
\2\ See e.g., Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe,
1825; 7 Stat. 257.
\3\ Treaty with the Sioux, 1851; 11 Stat 749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Civil War, the United States' westward expansion
led to conflict with the Sioux Nation, who saw their buffalo
herds, and consequently their economic livelihoods, begin to
decline with the passage of settlers along the Oregon Trail. In
1866, the United States sought to build a road through Sioux
Nation hunting grounds in the Powder River valley, despite the
objections of the Sioux tribes. Over the next two years, the
tribes fought the Powder River or Red Cloud's War to protect
their hunting grounds. The war ended with the signing of the
Treaty with the Sioux, 1868, in which the United States set
aside lands in South Dakota west of the Missouri River as the
Great Sioux Reservation as a ``permanent home'' for the Sioux
Nation and delineated tribal hunting grounds in the Powder
River valley.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Treaty with the Sioux, 1868; 15 Stat 635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1874, gold was discovered in the Black Hills of South
Dakota, and a gold rush began. After unsuccessfully attempting
to maintain the reservation boundaries that had been
established only six years before, President Grant's
Administration made repeated offers to purchase the Black
Hills, but the Sioux, to whom the Black Hills were (and still
are) sacred, refused to sell. Late in 1875, the United States
ordered the Sioux to report to Indian agencies along the
Missouri River and in Nebraska, away from the Black Hills.
Though few Sioux actually received notice of the order, the
United States Army was sent to enforce it in the spring of
1876. This led to the Battles of the Rosebud and the Little Big
Horn. After Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn, the United
States sent more troops to force the Sioux to report to the
Indian agencies. Many other battles ensued and many Sioux were
killed.\5\ In 1877, Congress enacted legislation taking more
than 7.2 million acres of land, including the Black Hills, from
the Sioux Nation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 379-80 (1980.
\6\ Act of Feb. 28, 1877; 19 Stat. 254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1880's, the United States sought more land from the
Sioux. In an 1889 Agreement, the United States divided the
Great Sioux Reservation into the Cheyenne River, Crow Creek,
Lower Brule, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Standing Rock Sioux
Reservations. Under the General Allotment Act of 1887, the
United States opened up these reservations to non-Indian
homesteaders, and set in motion a process through which Indian
ownership of land throughout the United States was reduced by
approximately 100 million acres before the allotment policy was
abandoned in 1934. Through this process non-Indians settled
within the boundaries of Sioux reservations, resulting in
checkerboarded land ownership and further reductions in the
tribes' land base.
Also in the late 1880's, what became known as the Ghost
Dance religion, which was believed to render its practitioners
impervious to bullets, became popular among Indians on several
reservations. In response to non-Indian alarm over the practice
of the Ghost Dance in large Indian encampments, the U.S. Army
was summoned, and in December, 1890, more than 300 Sioux
Indians, mostly unarmed elderly, women and children, were
massacred at Wounded Knee.\7\ From the Indian perspective, the
United States added insult to injury when the Army subsequently
awarded the Medal of Honor to 17 soldiers for their actions
during the massacre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 468, 476
(1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With enactment of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat.
827), Congress authorized the construction of five massive
earthen dams on the Missouri River as part of the Pick-Sloan
plan for water development in the Missouri River Basin. The
lands affected by construction of these dams and reservoirs
were, by and large, Indian lands. Six Sioux reservations in
North and South Dakota and Nebraska lost a combined total of
more than 375,000 acres, much of it prime bottomland of huge
economic and cultural significance to the tribes, to these
projects. Entire tribal communities were relocated and their
economies crippled or destroyed. Much of the land taken by the
United States for these projects was by condemnation
proceedings later found by the courts to have been unauthorized
by law. Despite the enormous tangible and intangible adverse
impacts suffered by these tribes, compensation for their losses
from the United States was for the most part belated and
incommensurate with the value of the losses.
The accrued physical and psychological impacts resulting
from the abrogation of solemn treaties, war, the taking of the
Black Hills, the breakup, fractionation and reduction of tribal
lands via allotments, the disruption of communities and
economies by the construction of Federal dams and reservoirs,
among other events, continue to contribute to feelings of
bitterness and loss among the people of the Sioux Nation. In
turn, these feelings and the attitudes associated with them
tend to aggravate and complicate the tribes' relationships with
the United States and local and state governments as well as
relations between individual Indians and non-Indians. This is
true despite efforts by the Congress and others to address some
of these past wrongs, such as formally apologizing for the
Wounded Knee Massacre and by enacting legislation to provide
additional compensation for the losses suffered from the Pick-
Sloan dam projects. In 1981, after thirty years of arduous
litigation in the Indian Claims Commission, the U.S. Claims
Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sioux Nation obtained an
$81 million judgment, including interest, for the loss of the
Black Hills. With interest since 1981, that judgment is now
worth approximately $500 million; however, the money remains in
the U.S. Treasury because the tribes of the Sioux Nation
continue to seek the return of the Black Hills. About the
manner by which the United States obtained the Black Hills, the
United States Claims Court observed that ``A more ripe and rank
case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability,
be found in our history''.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ United States v. Sioux Nation, 20 Ct. Cl. at 241 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the perspective of the tribes of the Sioux Nation,
evidence of the many adverse consequences of major events in
their history, and the effects of these events on their
people's present-day relations with non-tribal people and
entities, are far more pervasive around their reservations than
perhaps anywhere else. Awareness of this history and
perspective were key factors leading to the establishment of
the Wakpa Sica Historical Society and to the Society's efforts
to help foster a healing spirit of reconciliation among the
Sioux Nation and other citizens of South Dakota, and to promote
a better understanding of Native American history and culture
throughout the United States.
With great assistance from the Office of Tribal Justice of
the U.S. Department of Justice, the Wakpa Sica Historical
Society has developed detailed plans for a Reconciliation
Place, which would be located on 80 acres of land acquired from
private individuals and public entities. In the course of
developing these plans, the project was expanded to include a
Native American Economic Development Council to provide a
continuing source of funds and focus on the overwhelming need
to promote economic development on the reservations. On
September 29, 1999, Senator Daschle introduced S. 1658, a bill
to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation Place in Fort
Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes.
S. 1658: Summary of Provisions
Reconciliation Place--As amended and reported by the
Committee on Indian Affairs, S. 1658 would authorize the
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, to provide a
grant of up to $18,258,441 to the Wakpa Sica Historical Society
to construct a facility, known as the Reconciliation Place, to
house an Historical Archive and Display Center, the Sioux
Nation American Mediation Training Center, and a Sioux Nation
Economic Development Council.
Historical Archive and Display Center--The majority of
documents and artifacts pertaining to the history of the Sioux
Nation are kept in government facilities that are scattered
across the United States and are not easily accessible to the
public. The Historical Archive and Display Center at
Reconciliation Place would provide a central repository for
such documents and artifacts. By providing easier access to
these materials and by displaying and interpreting the history,
art, and culture of the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota tribes of
the Upper Midwest, the Center could enhance the knowledge and
understanding of the history of the Sioux, and promote
reconciliation among Indians and non-Indians.
Sioux Nation Supreme Court--The bill directs the Attorney
General to use available funds to provide technical and
financial assistance to the Sioux Nation to develop and operate
a Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court.
National Native American Mediation Training Center--In
response to a suggestion made in testimony by the
Administration's witness before the Committee's hearing on S.
1658, the bill was amended to include a direction to the
Attorney General to use available funds to provide technical
and financial assistance to the National Native American
Mediation Training Center. This center would address the need
for Native American mediators trained in conflict resolution
techniques to address conflicts that arise between Indian
tribes and neighboring communities and within tribal
communities themselves throughout Indian country.
Native American Economic Development Council--S. 1658 would
establish a Native American Economic Development Council, which
would be a charitable nonprofit corporation not considered to
be an agency of the United States. The Council would be
comprised of eleven members; one from each South Dakota Sioux
Tribe, one nominated by the Government of South Dakota, and one
nominated by the senior member of the South Dakota
congressional delegation. Each member would serve a two-year
term.
The council would be authorized to accept private gifts of
property and to raise funds from private entities for use as
matching funds for Federal assistance, to provide expertise and
technical support to help Indians establish successful
businesses and in obtaining Federal assistance for economic
development activities, and to provide scholarships to Indian
students pursuing a business education.
The Council would be subject to annual auditing and
reporting requirements, and the United States would not be
liable for any debts, defaults, acts or omissions of the
Council. Finally, S. 1658 authorizes $10 million for five
fiscal years, beginning with FY 2000, for the Secretary of the
Interior to make grants to the Council to fulfill its purposes.
Legislative History
On September 29, 1999, Senator Daschle introduced S. 1658
and the bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
On May 17, 2000, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing
on S. 1658. Senator Johnson, on behalf of the South
Congressional delegation, and witnesses from the
Administration, the United Sioux Tribes of South Dakota
Development Corporation, and the Chairman of the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe testified in strong support of the bill. The
witness from the Wakpa Sica Historical Society submitted
letters of support from the current Governor and a former
Governor of South Dakota, the State Bar Association, the State
Chamber of Commerce, the State Retailers Association, the
Mayors of the cities of Ft. Pierre and Pierre, and the County
Commissioners of the relevant local counties. On June 21, 2000,
the Committee on Indian Affairs adopted an amendment-in-the-
nature-of-a-substitute to S. 1658 that includes new provisions
providing for the establishment of the Native American
Mediation Training Center at the Reconciliation Place.
Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Vote
The Committee on Indian Affairs, in an open business
session on June 21, 2000, adopted an amendment-in-the-nature-
of-a-substitute to S. 1658 by voice vote and ordered the bill,
as amended, reported favorably to the Senate.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Findings
Section 1 sets forth seven Congressional findings.
The first and second findings are that there is a
continuing need for reconciliation between Indians and non-
Indians that may be met partially through the promotion of the
understanding of the history and culture of Sioux Indian
tribes.
The third finding is that the establishment of a Sioux
Nation Tribal Supreme Court will promote economic development
on reservations of the Sioux Nation and provide investors that
contribute to that development a greater degree of certainty
and confidence by reconciling conflicting tribal laws and
strengthening tribal court systems.
The fourth finding is that the reservations of the Sioux
Nation contain the poorest counties in the United States and
lack adequate tools to promote economic development and the
creation of jobs.
The fifth finding is that the establishment of a Native
American Economic Development Council will assist in promoting
economic growth and reducing poverty on reservations of the
Sioux Nation by coordinating economic development efforts,
centralizing expertise concerning Federal assistance, and
facilitating the raising of funds from private sources to meet
matching requirements under certain Federal assistance
programs.
The sixth finding is that there is a need to enhance and
strengthen the capacity of Indian tribal governments and tribal
justice systems to address conflicts which impair relationships
within Indian communities and between Indian and non-Indian
communities and individuals.
The seventh finding is that the establishment of the
National Native American Mediation Training Center, with the
technical assistance of tribal and Federal agencies, including
the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice,
would enhance and strengthen the mediation skills that are
useful in reducing tensions and resolving conflicts in Indian
communities and between Indian and non-Indian communities and
individuals.
Section 2. Definitions
Section 2 sets forth definitions of the terms ``Indian
Tribe'', ``Secretary'', and ``Sioux Nation''.
Title I--Reconciliation Center
Section 101. Reconciliation Center
Subsection (a) requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Interior, to establish a reconciliation center, to be known as
``Reconciliation Place''.
Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Interior to
take into trust for the benefit of the Sioux Nation the parcel
of land in Stanley County, South Dakota, described as ``The
Reconciliation Place Addition'', that is owned by the Wakpa
Sica Historical Society, Inc., for the purpose of establishing
and operating The Reconciliation Place.
Subsection (c) states the purposes of Reconciliation Place
to be (1) to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the
history of Native Americans by displaying and interpreting the
history, art, and culture of Indian tribes for Indians and non-
Indians; providing an accessible repository for the history of
Indian tribes and the family history of members of Indian
tribes; (2) to provide for the interpretation of the encounters
between Lewis and Clark and the Sioux Nation; (3) to house the
Sioux Nation Supreme Court; (4) to house the Native American
Economic Development Council; and, (5) to house the National
Native American Mediation Training Center to train tribal
personnel in conflict resolution and alternative dispute
resolution.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary of HUD, after
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to offer to
award a grant to the Wakpa Sica Historical Society for the
construction of Reconciliation Place. As a condition to
receiving the grant, the Society shall enter into an agreement
with the Secretary of HUD which shall specify the duties of the
Society under this section and arrangements for the maintenance
of Reconciliation Place. This subsection also authorizes to be
appropriated to the Department of HUD $18,358,441 to be used
for the grant under this section.
Section 102. Sioux Nation Supreme Court and National Native American
Mediation Training Center
Subsection (a) provides that to ensure the development and
operation of the Sioux National Tribal Supreme Court and the
National Native American mediation Training Center, the
Attorney General of the United States shall use available funds
to provide technical and financial assistance to the Sioux
Nation.
Subsection (b) authorizes to be appropriated such sums as
are necessary to carry out this section.
Title II--Native American Economic Development Council
Section 201. Establishment of Native American Economic Development
Council
Subsection (a) provides authority for the establishment of
the Native American Economic Development Council (hereafter
``Council'') as a charitable, nonprofit corporation that shall
not be considered to be an agency or establishment of the
United States.
Subsection (b) states the purposes of the council to be (1)
to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of property;
(2) to use those gifts as a source of matching funds needed to
receive Federal Assistance; (3) to provide tribal members with
the skills and resources necessary for establishing successful
businesses; (4) to provide grants and loans to tribal members
who are students pursuing an education in business or a
business-related subject; and, (6) to provide technical
assistance to Indian tribes and tribal members in obtaining
federal assistance.
Section 202. Board of Directors of the Council
Subsection (a) provides that the Council shall have a
governing Board of Directors (hereinafter ``Board'') consisting
of 11 directors who shall be citizens of the United States
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Each of the nine
directors shall represent one of the nine reservations of South
Dakota and shall be selected from among nominations submitted
by the appropriate Indian tribes. One director shall be
selected from nominations submitted by the Governor of South
Dakota and one director shall be selected from nominations
submitted by the most senior member of the South Dakota
Congressional delegation.
Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to appoint the
directors of the Board no later than December 30, 2000, to 2-
year terms. A vacancy on the Board shall be filled no later
than 60 days after a vacancy occurs, in the same manner as the
original appointment, and no individual may serve more than 3
consecutive terms as a director.
Subsection (c) provides that the Chairman of the Board
shall be elected from its members for a term of 2 years.
Subsection (d) provides that a majority of the members of
the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business.
Subsection (e) provides that the board shall meet at the
call of the Chairman at least once a year. If a director misses
3 consecutive regularly schedules meetings, he may be removed
by the Secretary and the vacancy filled in accordance with
subsection (b).
Subsection (f) provides that members of the board shall
serve without pay, but may be reimbursed for actual and
necessary travel and subsistence expenses incurred in the
performance of Council duties.
Subsection (g) grants the Board powers to appoint officers,
to adopt a constitution and bylaws consistent with the purposes
of the Council under this Act, and to carry out such other
actions as necessary to carry out the Council's purposes under
this Act. Appointment to the Board shall not constitute
employment by or holding of an office of the United States for
the purposes of any Federal law. Officers and employees of the
Council may not be appointed until the Council has sufficient
funds to pay them for their service; shall be appointed without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States code,
governing appointments in the competitive service; and may be
paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates. The first
officer or employee appointed by the Board shall be the
Secretary of the Board, who shall serve, at the direction of
the Board, as its chief operating officer and be knowledgeable
and experienced in matters relating to economic development and
Indian affairs.
Section 203. Powers and Obligations of the Council
Subsection (a) provides that the Council shall have, in
addition to the powers otherwise given it under this Act to
carry out this purposes, the usual powers of a corporation
acting as a trustee in South Dakota, including the power (1) to
accept any gift devise or bequest, absolutely or in trust, of
real or personal property of any income therefrom or other
interest therein; (2) to acquire by purchase or exchange any
real or personal property or interest therein; (3) to sell,
donate, lease, invest, reinvest, retain or otherwise dispose of
any property or income therefrom unless otherwise required by
the instrument of transfer; (4) to borrow money and issue
bonds, debentures, or other debt instruments; (5) to sue and be
sued, and complain and defend itself in any court of competent
jurisdiction, except that the directors shall not be personally
liable, except for gross negligence; (6) to enter into
contracts or other arrangements with public agencies and
private organizations and persons and to make such payments as
may be necessary to carry out its functions; and, (7) to carry
out any action that is necessary and proper to carry out the
purposes of the Council.
Subsection (b) provides that the Council shall (A) have
perpetual succession; (B) may conduct business throughout the
several States, territories, and possessions of the United
States and abroad; (C) shall have its principal offices in
South Dakota; and (D) shall at all times maintain a designated
agent authorized to accept service of process for the Council,
service to whom shall be deemed as service on or notice to the
Council.
Subsection (c) provides that the Council shall have an
official seal selected by the Board, which shall be judicially
noticed.
Subsection (d) provides that the Council may accept a
current or future interest in a gift, even if that gift is
encumbered, restricted, or subject to beneficial interests of 1
or more private persons.
Section 204. Administrative Services and Support
Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary may provide
personnel, facilities, and other administrative services to the
Council, including reimbursement of expenses under section 202,
not to exceed then current Federal government per diem rates,
for a period ending not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Subsection (b) permits the Council to reimburse the
Secretary for any administrative service provided under
subsection (a), and the Secretary shall deposit any such
reimbursement into the Treasury to the credit of the
appropriations then current and chargeable for the cost of
providing such service. The Secretary is authorized to continue
to provide facilities and necessary support services for such
facilities to the Council after the date specified in
subsection (a) on a space available, reimbursable cost basis.
Section 205. Volunteer Status
Subsection (a) provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may accept, without regard to
the civil service classification laws, rules, or regulations,
the services of the Council, the Board, and the officers and
employees of the Board, without compensation from the
Secretary, as volunteers in the performance of the functions
authorized under this Act.
Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to provide for
incidental expenses, including transportation, lodging, and
subsistence to the officers and employees serving as volunteers
under subsection (a).
Section 206. Audits, Report Requirements, and Petition of Attorney
General for Equitable Relief.
Subsection (a) provides that the Council shall be subject
to auditing and reporting requirements under section 10101 of
title 36, United States Code, in the same manner as is a
corporation under part B of that title.
Subsection (b) requires the Council, as soon as practicable
after the end of each fiscal year, to transmit to Congress a
report of its proceedings and activities during such year,
including a full and complete statement of its receipts,
expenditures, and investments.
Subsection (c) provides that if the Council engages in, or
threatens to engage in, any act, practice, or policy that is
inconsistent with the purposes of the Council under section
201(b), or refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge its
obligations under this Act or threatens to do so, then the
Attorney General of the United States may petition the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia for such equitable
relief as may be necessary or appropriate.
Section 207. United States Release From Liability
This section declares that the United States shall not be
liable for any debts, defaults, acts, or omissions of the
Council, and that the full faith and credit of the United
States shall not extend to any obligation of the Council.
Section 208. Grants to Council; Technical Assistance
Subsection (a) provides that, not less than annually, the
Secretary shall award a grant to the Council, to be used to
carry out the purposes specified in section 201(b) in
accordance with this section. As a condition of receiving a
grant, the secretary of the Board, with its approval, shall
enter into an agreement with the Secretary that specifies the
duties of the Council in carrying out the grant and the
information that is required to be included in the agreement
under this section. Each such agreement shall specify that the
Federal share of a grant under this section shall be 80 percent
of the cost of the activities funded under the grant. No such
grant may be made to the council unless the Council has raised
an amount from private persons and State and local government
agencies equivalent to the non-Federal share of the grant. Each
agreement shall also specify that a reasonable amount of the
Federal funds made available to the Council under such
agreement, but not more than 15 percent of such funds, may be
used by the Council for administrative expenses, including
salaries, travel and transportation expenses, and other
overhead expenses.
Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary of HUD, the
Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of the
Department of Commerce, the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, and the Administrator of the Rural Development
Administration shall provide to the Council such technical
assistance as may be necessary for the Council to carry out the
purposes specified in section 201(b).
Section 209. Authorization of Appropriations
Subsection (a) authorizes to be appropriated to the
Department of the Interior $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 to be used in accordance with
section 208.
Subsection (b) provides that the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under this section are in addition to any amounts
provided to the Council under any other provision of Federal
law.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The cost estimate for S. 1658, as amended, as provided by
the Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 26, 2000.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1658, a bill to
authorize the construction of a reconciliation place in Fort
Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact for this
estimate is Lanette J. Keith.
Sincerely,
Steven M. Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1658--A bill to authorize the construction of a reconciliation place
in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes
Summary: S. 1658 would authorize the construction of a
building--to be known as Reconciliation Place--in Fort Pierre,
South Dakota. It would house displays on the history of the
Sioux Nation, and the offices of the Sioux Nation Tribal
Supreme Court and National Native American Mediation Training
Center, the Native American Economic Development Council, and
the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 1658 would cost $60 million over
the 2001-2005 period. Because enactment of S. 1658 would not
affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply. S. 1658 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) and would have no significant impact on the
budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1658 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 750
(administration of justice) and 450 (community and regional
development).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
---------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Construction of Reconciliation
Place:
Authorization level......... 18 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays........... 8 10 0 0 0
Sioux Nation Supreme Court and
National Native American
Mediation Training Center:
Estimated authorization 1 1 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
level......................
Estimated outlays........... 1 1 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Native American Economic
Development Council:
Authorization level......... 0 10 10 10 10
Estimated outlays........... 0 10 10 10 10
Total Spending Under S.
1658:
Estimated 19 11 10 10 10
authorization level
Estimated outlays... 9 21 10 10 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: S. 1658 would direct the Secretary of
the Interior to take land into trust that is currently the
property of the Wakpa Sica Historical Society, a private
nonprofit corporation. The bill would authorize the
appropriation of $18 million to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for a grant to the Wapka Sica Historical
Society to construct Reconciliation Place on the land taken
into trust. Reconciliation Place would serve as a visitor
center, museum, educational center, and theater. It also would
house the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court, the National
Native American Mediation Training Center, and the Native
American Economic Development Council. Based on information
from the Administration, CBO estimates that this provision
would cost $18 million over the 2001-2002 period.
S. 1658 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as
necessary for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide
technical and financial assistance to the Sioux Nation Tribal
Supreme Court and National Native American Mediation Training
Center. Based on information from DOJ, CBO estimates that this
provision would cost $1 million in each of fiscal years 2001
and 2002 to establish a law library, develop training and
support materials, and train staff. After 2002, CBO estimates
the cost of paying staff and maintaining the law library and
support materials would be less than $500,000 each year.
Finally, the bill would establish the Native American
Economic Development Council to provide technical and financial
assistance to Indians and Indian tribes in obtaining federal
financial assistance to establish new businesses. S. 1658 would
authorize the appropriation of $10 million for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006 for grants to the Native American
Economic Development Council. CBO estimates that this provision
would cost $40 million over the 2002-2005 period, subject to
the appropriation of the authorized amounts.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1658
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would have no significant impact on the
budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Lanette J. Keith and
Ali Aslam. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments;
Susan Sieg Thompkins. Impact on the Private Sector: Sarah
Sitarek.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Executive Communications
The views of the Administration on S. 1658 are set forth in
the following statement of Mark C. Van Norman, Director, Office
of Tribal Justice, United States Department of Justice, on May
17, 2000, to the Committee on Indian Affairs:
Statement of Mark C. Van Norman, Director, Office of Tribal Justice
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
My name is Mark C. Van Norman and I am the Director of the
Office of Tribal Justice, Department of Justice. Thank you for
inviting us to testify on S. 1658, a Bill to authorize the
construction of a Reconciliation Place in Forte Pierre, South
Dakota, and for other purposes.
At the outset, I should emphasize the importance of the
government-to-government relations. Congress has a longstanding
policy of promoting Indian Self-Determination and in
recognition of Indian sovereignty, promotes government-to-
government relations with Indian tribes. The Executive Branch
also respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and works with
the tribes on a government-to-government basis. In 1998, the
President Executive Order 13084, on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which explains
fundamental principles of Federal-tribes relations:
The United States has a unique legal relationship
with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the
Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes,
Executive orders, and court decisions. Since the
formation of the Union, the United States has
recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations
under its protection. In treaties, our Nation has
guaranteed the right of Indian tribes to self-
government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian
tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their
members and territory. The United States continues to
work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government
basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-
government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty
and other rights.
63 Fed. Reg. 27655 (1998).
In our Department of Justice Policy on Indian Sovereignty
and Government-to-Government Relations with Indian Tribes, we
have pledged to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-
government basis, guided by respect for tribal sovereignty, and
to assist Indian tribes as they work to develop strong law
enforcement, tribal courts, and traditional justice systems. 61
Fed. Reg. 29424 (1996). The Office of Tribal Justice was
established in 1995 to provide a permanent channel of
communication for tribal governments to express their concerns
to the Department of Justice; to coordinate departmental policy
on Indian affairs both within the Department and with other
federal agencies; and to ensure that the Department works with
the tribes on a basis of government-to-government relations.
S. 1658 would authorize the construction of a
Reconciliation Place in Pierre, South Dakota, promote the
formation of the Sioux Nation Supreme Court to serve as an
appellate court for the tribes of the Sioux Nation, and
establish an economic development council.
The Administration believes that steps have been taken to
render the construction of a Reconciliation Place and the
establishment of an economic development council unnecessary.
The Administration has requested in the FY 2001 budget funds
for the planning and design of the Lakota Sioux Heritage
Cultural Center at Badlands National Park. Planning for the
Center's construction is well underway and road construction is
ongoing in this Fiscal Year. The Center will promote the
public's understanding of the history of the Sioux Nation and
act as a repository for cultural and historical items.
Similary, the Administration has established Native
American EDGE. Native EDGE is HUD's Native American Economic
Development Access Center which will, for the first time, link
over twelve Federal agencies through a single toll-free number
and web-site so that lending institutions, non-profits,
foundations, Native American business owners, and private
businesses can collaborate to achieve sustainable economic
development in Indian country. The Access Center will provide
personalized research, initiate dialogue among entrepreneurs,
coordinate with other Federal agencies, and share knowledge and
experience to ensure the expansion of economic development in
Indian country.
Pursuant to our mission, the Office of Tribal Justice
consulted with tribal representatives who have told us that
they view efforts to promote the unity of the Sioux Nation as
an important objective and support the concept of the Sioux
Nation Supreme Court. The Department of Justice joins the Sioux
tribes and the State of South Dakota in supporting a strong
tribal court system as envisioned by section 102 of S. 1658.
Before turning to a discussion of the history and
circumstances of the Sioux Nation, I would like to touch
briefly on some of our general work in the areas of tribal law
enforcement, tribal justice and reconciliation between the
United States and Native Americans.
The Department of Justice has been working on both civil
rights concerns and tribal justice concerns among Native
Americans generally, and the tribes of the Sioux Nation in
particular. The Department of Justice, for example,
participated in the hearing that the South Dakota Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission held in Rapid
City, South Dakota in December, 1999 to address the concerns of
Native Americans. In keeping with the S. 1658 policy that
promotes the formation of a Sioux Nation Supreme Court, the
State Advisory Committee made a number of recommendations to
assist tribal courts in administering justice. Among other
things, the Committee recommended,
The Department of Justice and Interior should expand
their efforts to provide funding, training, and
technical assistance to tribal courts and tribal law
enforcement. Tribal governments should make every
effort to insulate their professional law enforcement
entities and courts from the pressures of political
influence and patronage.
Three years before this recommendation, the Department of
Justice--together with the Department of the Interior--
undertook the Indian Country Law Enforcement Improvement
Initiative. The State Advisory Committee's recommendation
reinforces the importance of our FY 2001 budget request. The
Department of Justice requested $173 million to improve tribal
law enforcement and justice systems, including $45 million for
tribal police, $34 million for tribal detention, $20 million
for tribal juvenile justice, and a $15 million request to
enhance tribal courts, among other things. This request is
essential because effective tribal law enforcement is a
necessary adjunct to effective Federal law enforcement in areas
of Indian country, like South Dakota, that rely on the Justice
Department to prosecute general felony crimes by or against
Indians. Furthermore, tribal courts are necessary partners with
the tribal police maintaining public safety on Indian
reservations.
The Department of Justice promotes the formation of
intertribal courts, consistent with tribal self-determination.
The Sioux tribes have a vital need for assistance in the area
of tribal law enforcement and tribal courts, and the Department
of Justice, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
has been working actively with the tribes of the Sioux Nation
under the Indian Law Enforcement Improvement Initiative.
The Civil Rights Division also actively protects the civil
rights of American Indians and Alaska Natives through its
enforcement of various civil rights statutes, including the
criminal statutes that allow for federal prosecution of hate
crimes and police misconduct, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair
Housing Act, and the Equal Opportunity Credit Act. For example,
the Civil Rights Division has brought lending discrimination
cases against banks which charge Indians higher interest rates
than other customers. In May 1997, the United States and a
Nebraska bank that serves the Oglala Sioux community entered a
consent decree, which provides that the bank will pay $175,000
for victim compensation, pay $100,000 towards application fees
on new loans to Indians, actively recruit Indian employees, and
provide an education program for Indian borrowers. Positive
working relationships with tribal governments play an important
part in the success of the Division's work to protect the civil
rights of Native Americans.
the history of the sioux nation & the need for reconciliation
Historically, the United States adopted a policy to protect
Indian tribes, Indian lands, and Indian rights. In the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Continental Congress declared:
The utmost good faith shall always be observed to the
Indians, their lands and property shall never be taken
from them without their consent; and in their property,
rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or
disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorised by
Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity
shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs
being done to them, and for preserving peace and
friendship with them. * * *
Consistent with this policy, President Jefferson commissioned
the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1803 to explore the Louisiana
Purchase.
As the expedition made its way up the Missouri River
through South Dakota, Lewis and Clark stopped and visited the
Yankton Sioux Tribe. Among the Yankton Sioux, a young baby was
wrapped in an American flag by the expedition members. That
baby later grew up to be the famous Yankton Chief, Struck by
the Ree, and he led his people on a course of friendship with
the United States. See Struck by the Ree, Yankton Daily Press &
Dakotan (Sept. 12, 1994); http://www.yankton.net/stories/
091599/bus__struck.html. In 1858, Chief Struck by the Ree
signed the Treaty of 1858 with the United States on behalf of
his tribe, preserving the peace and securing the Yankton Sioux
homeland. See Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1858; 11 Stat.
748. This event is just one example of the profound effect that
the Lewis and Clark expedition had on the Sioux Nation. The
Lewis and Clark expedition met the Sioux people at other places
along the Missouri River, notably near the present day site of
Fort Pierre along the Bad River. Yankton Area Chamber of
Commerce, Lewis & Clark Historic Trail: the South Dakota Trail
http://www.lewisclark.net/sdtrail/index.html. Thus, the Bad
River, or Wakpa Sica in the Lakota language, is a very
appropriate site for a Reconciliation Center.
In 1815, the United States entered into treaties with the
Dakota and Lakota tribes of the Sioux Nation, which pledged
federal protection for the tribes. See e.g., Treaty with the
Teton (Lakota), 1815, 7 Stat. 125. In 1825, the United States
entered into treaties of peace, friendship and commerce with
the tribes of the Sioux Nation to promote the fur trade and the
safe passage of American citizens through Sioux Nation
territory. See e.g., Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux
Tribe, 1825, 7 Stat. 257. In 1851, to facilitate trade and
reduce intertribal conflict that sometimes threatened safe
passage, the United States entered into treaty with the Sioux
and neighboring Indian tribes, which described their respective
aboriginal areas. Treaty with the Sioux, 1851, 11 Stat. 749.
After the Civil War, the United States' expansion westward
brought conflict with the Sioux Nation, who saw their buffalo
herds begin to decline with the passage of settlers along the
Oregon Trail. In 1866, the United States sought to build a road
through Sioux Nation hunting grounds in the Powder River
valley, and the Sioux tribes objected. For the next two years,
the Sioux tribes fought the Powder River or Red Cloud's War to
protect their hunting grounds and ultimately, the United States
determined that the best course would be to enter into a treaty
that established a permanent reservation for the Sioux Nation
and delineated their hunting grounds. In the Treaty with the
Sioux Nation, 1868, the United States set aside South Dakota
west of the Missouri River as the Great Sioux Reservation as a
``permanent home'' for the Sioux Nation and delineated tribal
hunting lands in the Powder River valley. Treaty with the
Sioux, 1868; 15 Stat. 635.
Yet, in 1874, gold was discovered in the Black Hills of
South Dakota, and a gold rush began. After attempting to
maintain existing reservation boundaries, the Grant
Administration sought to purchase the Black Hills, but the
Sioux Nation declined. In 1876, the United States ordered the
Sioux to report to Indian agencies along the Missouri River and
in Nebraska, away from the Black Hills. When Sitting Bull,
Crazy Horse, and several bands of Sioux refused to comply, the
United States sent out the army to force the issue. This led to
the Battles of the Rosebud and the Little Big Horn. After
Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn, the United States sent
out more troops to force the Sioux to report to the Indian
agencies, resulting in the Battle of Slim Butte and many other
battles where a number of Sioux were killed. United States v.
Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 379-80 (1980). In 1877, Congress
passed an Act taking the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation. Act
of Feb. 28, 1877, 19 Stat. 254.
In the 1880s, the United States sought more land from the
Sioux. In the 1889 Agreement with the Sioux, the United States
divided the Great Sioux Reservation into the Cheyenne River,
Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Standing Rock
Sioux Reservations. The United States acquired several million
acres of surplus lands. Shortly after this Act, the Ghost Dance
religion became popular on several of the reservations. Some
non-Indians were alarmed because the Ghost Dance was practiced
in substantial encampments, the U.S. Army was called in, and in
December, 1890, more than 300 Sioux Indians, mostly unarmed
elderly, women and children, were massacred at Wounded Knee.
Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 7 CI. Ct. 468, 476
(CI. Ct. 1985). The United States has expressed its sincere
regret for the Wounded Knee Massacre.
Many of the Native American people of South Dakota continue
to feel the loss brought about by these events. Against this
background, it is appropriate for Congress to establish a
Reconciliation Place to reflect the history of the Lewis and
Clark Expedition and to promote knowledge of and understanding
of the history and culture of the Sioux Nation. This effort
would help foster a healing spirit of reconciliation among the
Sioux Nation and other citizens of South Dakota and would
promote a better understanding of Native American history and
culture among the Nation as a whole.
Furthermore, the Committee might consider reconciliation
among Native Americans in a larger sense. There is a need for
Native American mediators trained in conflict resolution
techniques throughout Indian country to address conflicts that
sometimes arise between Indian tribes and neighboring
communities and within tribal communities themselves.
Presently, the Department of Justice Community Relations
Service (CRS) provides mediation services to tribal governments
throughout the Nation. There are many situations where CRS
cannot respond due to jurisdictional restrictions or resource
allocation issues. The Committee might consider whether these
needs might be addressed by the establishment of a mediation
training center at the proposed Wakpa Sica Reconciliation
Place. Such a mediation center would enable tribal leaders and
officials to acquire mediation skills useful in mediating
conflicts that arise in Indian communities and surrounding
communities. CRS could assist by providing technical assistance
to such a mediation training center.
the sioux nation supreme court
As I noted earlier, the Department supports the development
of intertribal courts. There are a number of such efforts in
place among tribes in the United States, including intertribal
courts of appeals like the Northwest Inter-tribal Court of
Appeals. These intertribal courts can produce a number of
benefits. They promote inter-tribal unity. The resource sharing
they represent can produce efficiencies. In instances where
multiple tribes share a common political, historical, and
cultural experience, they can represent a step towards that
tradition of political unity. They can provide a means for
marshaling legal expertise--including expertise in tribal
customary legal structures--to provide high quality
adjudication of disputes.
The Department of Justice supports the efforts of the
constituent tribes of the Great Sioux Nation to form the Sioux
Nation Tribal Court. These tribes share a history and tradition
of unified political structure and action. Many of their
respective constitutions and by-laws retain a recognition of
that historical structure by authorizing their tribal councils
to select delegates to serve on a Sioux Nation Council.
Moreover, as federally-recognized Indian tribes, each
constituent tribe of the Great Sioux Nation ``possess[es] the
inherent authority to establish [its] own form of government,
including tribal justice systems.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(4).
This authority has been termed ``the first element of
sovereignty.'' Felix M. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law
(1982 ed.) at 247. Their respective decisions to participate in
the Sioux Nation Tribal Court is an exercise of that authority.
The Department supports that exercise, consistent with the
Department's Policy on Indian Tribal Sovereignty and
Government-to-Government Relations with Indian Tribes, which
declares the Department's commitment ``to strengthening and
assisting tribal governments in their development and to
promoting Indian self-governance.''
Section 102(a) of S. 1658 would direct the Department of
Justice to provide technical and financial assistance to the
Sioux Nation towards the development and operation of the Sioux
Nation Tribal Supreme Court and this provision falls within the
Department's commitment to assist Indian tribes as they develop
strong tribal courts. The language of section 102(a) requires
technical amendment, however. The current language of section
102(a) directs the Department to ``provide such technical and
financial assistance to the Sioux Nation as is necessary.''
This language should be amended to provide that: ``To promote
the development and operation of the Sioux Nation Tribal
Supreme Court, the Attorney General may provide appropriate
technical and financial assistance to the Sioux Nation from
available funds.''
conclusion
In conclusion, the Administration supports the vision of
strong tribal courts as embodied in S. 1658. Again, thank you
for the opportunity to testify before the Committee today.
Regulatory Impact Statement
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires each report accompany a bill to evaluate the
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in
carrying out the bill S. 1658, as amended. The Committee finds
that the regulatory impact of S. 1658, as amended, will be
negligible.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with subsection 12 of the rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill are required to be set forth in the accompanying
Committee report. The Committee states that enactment of S.
1658 will not result in any change in existing law.