CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
2007 has begun with enormous
challenges for the Bush administration
and the newly organized U.S. Congress.
We are still stuck in the Iraq quagmire
with little consensus as to what to do
about it. Iraq has already cost about a
half trillion U.S. dollars and is costing
a billion more every month, not to
mention the toll it’s taking in U.S. and
Iraqi lives.
Meanwhile, vital federal programs
affecting Indian tribes are left with no
congressional action. It's not only be
cause of the billions siphoned off to pay
for the catastrophes that have hit our
nation but other national priorities and,
in the case of programs like Indian health,
unresolved issues beyond funding.
Delores Pigsley
Indian Health Care
Improvement Act
Re-authorization
The National Indian Health Board
(NIHB), NCAI, and individual Indian
tribes have worked hard for months to
get the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (IHC1A) re-authorization (S1057)
off the ground.
I testified on behalf of the Siletz
Tribe in support of SI057 as well as
for other federal programs. After a long
and determined effort, it seems we are
back to ground zero.
The administration has not helped
to move the legislation forward. The
Republican Steering Committee (RSC)
has had specific objections to SI057,
including such issues as definitions in
the current law and questions as to why
Indian Medicaid patients should be
exempt from co-payments.
In fact. RSC even questioned why
all IHS beneficiaries shouldn't be re
quired to make co-payments, not only
Medicaid patients.
The National Steering Committee
(NSC) of NIHB. in its meetings with
congressional and administration rep
resentatives. addressed these and other
objections to SI057. For one thing, leg
islators and their staffs were reminded
that federal Indian health care is not an
insurance program but a treaty obligation.
NIHB also took issue with the Jus
tice Department's While Paper on In
dian Health that Justice admitted was
released prematurely to the RSC. Tribal
officials were told that certain sections
of the White Paper would be corrected,
although Justice still objected to cer
tain other parts of SI057.
The NIHB Executive Board had
sent formal letters to Attorney General
Gonzales and President Bush last Oc
tober. appealing for their support of the
1HCIA re-authorization bill without
further opposition. NIHB representa
tives also met with White House staff
in November for this purpose.
Although we are back to where we
started, tribes may have a better chance
now with a new Congress that will ad
dress many administration and congres
sional concerns.
Status of Cobell vs.
Kempthorne Case
As you know, the Cobell vs.
Kempthorne case has been a burning
legal issue for more than 10 years. On
Dec. 7. 2006, however, Eloise Cobell,
the lead plaintiff in the case, issued a
statement in which she said it’s time
for the trust case to be resolved:
“... Various news outlets are now
reporting that Sen. McCain is pressing
legislation that would settle the case for
$8 billion. This is a far cry from the
over $27 billion we proposed last sum
mer. but after bearing personal witness
to the hardship and abuse that contin
ues to be heaped upon the individual
Indian beneficiaries after 10 years of
hard-fought acrimonious litigation. I
have directed my attorneys to seriously
consider this offer. This nation's first
citizens are also the poorest and any
resolution that is expeditious and fair shall
be seriously and thoughtfully consid
ered. We will be examining this legis
lation to make sure it is just that. II you
are an account holder or a trust benefi
ciary, now is the time to express your
concerns and hopes about a possible
settlement to your member of Congress.
It’s time for Indian country to speak.
The bureaucrats have had their say."
Those of you who have followed
this case in the media may already know
that the original judge in the case. Dis
trict Judge Royce Lamberth, who issued
a 34-page ruling several months ago and
had harsh words to say about the gov
ernment's role in the controversy, was
removed on July 1 I by Chief U.S. Dis
trict Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S.
Court of Appeals. He assigned U.S. Dis
trict Judge James Robertson to the case.
It was reported on Dec. 21 that
Judge Robertson had received conflict
ing views as to when the case should
be set for trial. Cobell’s lawyer sug
gested the trial be held this summer on
the accounting and remedies phases,
while the Justice Department insisted
it would be inappropriate to hold a trial
-no date should yet be set.
The judge commented that it was not
his intent "to dawdle” and declared he
would hold a second status meeting in
January so he could "delve into the case
in greater detail and move the case forward."
Because of the complexities in
volved and differences of opinion re
garding when a trial can be held, it's
unlikely that this case will be settled
anytime soon. At least Cobell seems
to have taken a major step forward by
directing her attorneys “to seriously
consider" Sen. McCain’s proposed $8
billion settlement offer.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Spe
cial Trustee, which was established in
the wake of the Cobell case and in ac
cordance with the 1994 American In
dian Trust Fund Management Reform
Act, has put together and implemented
a number of important trust fund man
agement reforms.
According to a recent report by the
Government Accounting Office (GAO),
however, many key reforms have yet
to be defined and implemented.
BIA/DOI Fee-to-Trust Policy
Of major importance to Indian
tribes generally and in particular to the
Siletz Tribe is a tribe's right to have fee
land taken into federal trust status. I
believe it's helpful to put our tribe's
fee-to-trust efforts, and the issues in
volved. into historical perspective.
It's often said that Indian tribes lost
millions of acres between 1887 and 1934.
These years are specifically cited and
important because it was in 1887 that the
Dawes Act (also known as the Land in
Severalty Act) was passed, which began
the massive alienation of Indian lands.
Under the act. each head of house
hold was issued 160 acres of land: a
single individual 18 and older, 80
acres; and to each minor. 40 acres of
land for farming and other agricultural
purposes. This act caused more than
90 million acres to pass out of Indian
ownership during the 47-year period.
Il was in 1934 that the Howard
Wheeler Act (also known as the Indian
Reorganization Act) was passed by
Congress. This act. among other pur
poses. brought an end to the allotment
system and prevented the further ero
sion of Indian lands.
I believe it’s important to point out
that although the Dawes Act itself had
devastating consequences, millions of
acres of Indian land had already gone
out of Indian ownership before 1887.
In fact, it was in 1865. about 20 years
before the Dawes Act, that 250.000
acres were unjustifiably torn out of the
heart of our Siletz Reservation by the
federal government and opened up for
while settlement.
By the 1870s, the rest of our res
ervation also had been diminished and by
the time the termination axe fell on our
tribe in 1953, we were virtually landless.
Three years after the Siletz Tribe
was restored in 1977 as a federally rec
ognized tribe. Art Bensell, Stanley
Strong. Pauline Ricks. Ed Ben. Lindsey
John, and others worked on a plan to
establish a reservation for Siletz. As a
result. 3.600 acres of scattered, rugged
forestland were returned to the tribe
under the Reservation Act of 1980.
In view of the appalling history of
how the tribe's million-acre reservation
was wrongfully extinguished, it's no
wonder the passion with which our
Tribal Council views the federal fee-
to-trust process.
The Siletz Tribe has not. however,
gone helter-skelter in pursuit of land.
We have been methodical, reasonable,
and modest in seeking land and always
for constructive tribal purposes. We also
have been meticulous in applying the
requirements of the fee-to-trust process
and respectful of the concerns of local
governments and communities in our
efforts.
My hope has always been that lo
cal. state, and federal governments would
understand where the tribe is coming
from historically and why the tribe's
fee-to-trust efforts are of such impor
tance to the welfare of our people and
the future of our tribe.
Revised Stipends to Elders
The Siletz Tribe has had various
special programs for the elders paid out
of the tribe's gaming revenues, which
are paid to the tribe for tribal purposes
after all expenses have been paid (re
ferred to as excess pledge revenues or
EPR). In addition to funding elders’
programs, individual tribal elders 70
years and older also have been receiv
ing monthly stipends.
The tribe has decided that all elders
(which the Siletz Tribe defines as per
sons who are 55 and older) should re
ceive stipends. However, since 70-
year-olds normally have greater needs
than 55-year-olds. a system has been
established under which the amount of
stipends will depend on age. Elders 55-
61 will receive stipends of $100; those
62-69, $200; and those 70 and older
will continue to receive $300.
This revised system, which we be
lieve is reasonable and justified, will
assist especially (he elders who are on
fixed incomes and most in need of health
care. The new stipend system will re
quire a revision of the excess pledge
revenue allocation schedule, which is
published periodically in the tribe's
confidential newsletter. Nesika lUahee.
February 2007
•
Siletz News
•
3