Indian Amendment to Freedom of Information Act

169 Pages·2007·4.63 MB·English

INDIAN AMENDMENT TO FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT
ltJJ:*d JUCaSU-. >WJX. Cri^^^ZtLtu. er*>-
CC^J^X^.
HEARING 4-ccr
BEFORE THE JJuQPY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2652
A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 552 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES
CODE, TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THAT SECTION RELATING TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
INFORMATION
MAY 17, 1976
Printed few the use of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

7M» 0 WASHINGTON : 1976
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona

LEE METCALF , Montana CLIFFORD P. HAN8EN, Wyoming

J. BENNETT JOHN8TON, Louisiana MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon

JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho

FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
JOHN GLENN, Ohio
RICHARD STONE, Florida
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
Special Counsel and Staff Director
GBENVILLE GABSIDE,
A. Deputy Staff Director lor Legislation
DANIEL DREYFUS,
J. Chief Counsel
WILLIAM VAN NESS,
D. Deputy Chief Counsel
MICHAEL HARVEY,
J. Senior Counsel
OWEN MALONE,
W. 0. Jr., Minority Counsel
(FRED) CRAFT,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIES
JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma

LEE METCALF, Montana JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho

FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona
J. Professional Staff Member
FORREST GERARD,
<n)
S
1&7
^

£ CONTENTS

OQ
Page

S. 2652 3
Department reports:

Interior 5

Management and Budget 10
STATEMENTS

Ab ourezk, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota 1
Chino, Wendell, President, Mescalero Apache Tribe, and President,
National Tribal Chairmen's Association 35, 37

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico 11
Frankel, Hon. Harley, Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs accom-
panied by Martin Seneca, Director of Trust Responsibilities, and
Ralph Reeser, Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior 16, 25
Johnson, Roland, Governor, Laguna Pueblo 30
Lovato, Delfin J., Chairman, All Indian Pueblo Council 27, 29
Martinez, James, Governor, San Ildefonso Pueblo 32,33
McCloud, Zelma, Chairperson, Nisqually Tribe 45
Palmer, Shirley, Secretary, Business Council of the Colville Confederated
Tribes 48
Schifter, Richard, Counsel for the Laguna Pueblo 39
Taft, Hon. Peter R., Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural
Resources Division, accompanied by Miles Flint, Chief, Indian Resources

and Land Section, Department of Justice 19
Tonasket, Mel, President, National Congress of American Indians 50
APPENDIXES
I
APPENDIX
Letter to Hon. Thomas S. Kleppe, Secretary of the Interior from Senator
Abourezk and Additional Material Submitted for the Record by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs 55
II
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record 147
(in)

INDIAN AMENDMENT TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT
MONDAY, MAY 17, 1976
U.S.
SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 3110
Dirksen Office Building, Hon. James Abourezk, presiding.
Present: Senator Abourezk.
Also present: Forrest J. Gerard, professional staff member; and
Ella Mae Horse, research assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ABOUREZK, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator The Indian Affairs Subcommittee hearing will
ABOUREZK.
come to order. This is an open public hearing to receive testimony from
the administration and the Indian community on S. 2652, a bill to
amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, to provide an exemp-
tion to the requirements of that section relating to the availability of
information.
As originally envisioned, when enacted into law in 1966, the Free-
dom of Information Act was designed to make Government infor-
mation available to citizens, unless it would impair the Nation's
security or frustrate legitimate investigative efforts.
The recent amendments to the Freedom of Information Act,
approved in November 1974, stipulated that all Government informa-
tion was public unless covered by nine narrowly drawn exemptions•
in defense of which the Government would bear the burden of proof
in a court test.
The 1974 amendments also imposed stringent time limitations for
production of documents, and provided for possible disciplinary action
against offending administrators.
Clearly, this sweeping and progressive statute has had the salutary
effect of forcing countless public officials to release information and
data to its rightful owners•the general public.
Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act, according to tribal
leaders, has in several instances served to work against the best
interests of the Indian community. This has occurred when third
party interests demand release of information and data concerning
Indian natural resources pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
(1)
Such information is generally maintained by the Department of
the Interior, the agency chargecl with carrying out the Nation's trust
responsibility to Indian tribes.
The Department, therefore, is placed in the anomalous position by
the Freedom of Information Act of being forced to violate its fiduciary
relationship with the tribes.
S. 2652 would resolve the dilemma of the Indians and their trustee
by exempting information concerning the natural resources and assets
of tribes from the Freedom of Information Act.
The purpose of this hearing is to establish a precise record of illus-
trative examples and cases in which the release of such information
has, in fact, had a detrimental impact on the Indian community.
At this point, I shall order that S. 2652 and the Department reports
be inserted in the record.
[The information follows:]
S. 2652
CONGRESS
94TH
1ST SESSION
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
11,1975
NOVEMBER
Mr. Introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
DOMENICI
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
an exemption to the requirements of that section relating to
the availability of information.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
4 amended•
5 (1) by striking out at the end of paragraph (8)
G "or";
7 (2) by striking out at the end of paragraph (9)
8 the period and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and
9 "and"; and
II
4
2
1 (3) by adding immediately below paragraph (9)
2 the following new paragraph:
3 "(10) information held by a Federal agency as
4 trustee, regarding the natural resources or other assets of
5 Indian tribes or bands or groups or individual members
6 thereof.".
v-SK/A".
"*«<?^L&L.
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
WAY H1976
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your Committee has requested the vievs of this Department on S. 2652,
a bill "To amend section 552 of title 5. United States Code, to
provide an exemption to the requirements of that section relating
to the availability of information."
S. 2652 vould exempt from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552) "information held by a Federal agency as trustee,
regarding the natural resources or other assets of Indian tribes or
bands or gi-oups or individual members thereof." This exemption vould
become paragraph (10) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b), as an addition to the nine
categories of subject matter nov listed in that section to vhich the
disclosure requirements do not apply.
Instead of an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, as
proposed in S. 2652, ve vill be submitting to the Committee
a substitute bill which vill provide separate statutory authority
for a special limited exemption to the Freedom of Information Act
similar to that proposed in S. 2652.
Ve believe that such an exemption is necessary to preserve the
fiduciary relationship of the United States to Indian people. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs of this Department is the agency charged
vith discharging the Nation's trust responsibility to its Indian
tribes, and this agency is finding it difficult to obey the
mandate of the Freedom of Information Act (vitbout this exemption)
and at the Bame time faithfully perform the obligations of its
trust to Indians. In essence, ve have been placed in the position
of being required by lav to violate the confidential relationship
vhich ve have vith Indian tribes and individuals. Indeed, such
violations could veil give rise to claims by tribes or individual
^UJT'QV,
6
Indians against the Federal Government. As to this possibility,
it should he noted that the United States Supreme Court has said
that the United States in its dealings vith Indian tribes -
"... has charged itself with moral obligations of the
highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct, as dis-
closed In the acts of those who represent it in dealings
with Indians, should therefore be Judged by the most exacting
fiduciary standards." Seminole Nation v. U.S, 316 U.S. 286,
297 (19*2).
As the agency charged with carrying out the nation's trust
responsibility to Indian tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
must oversee, supervise, and administer the programs by which
the Indian tribes can develop their natural resources and their
reservation and tribal economies. As one means of carrying out
this function, the EIA is presently engaged in a series of
inventories of natural resources and minerals deposits on Indian
lands. The Bureau is often beset by requests for copies of these
inventories by interested parties, sometimes by the very companies
who will compete for the opportunity to develop these resources.
Presently, the Bureau is required to disclose the results of these
inventories under formal Freedom of Information Act requests.
Disclosure of reports such as these clearly places the tribes in a
disadvantageous position in negotiating with companies for the
development of these resources. In fact, many tribes in the past
have depended largely upon bonus payments paid by these companies
for the right to conduct exploration for these minerals. Vith much
of the work done for them, and with access to detailed information
concerning mineral deposits, these companies will not be willing
to compete with each other and to pay large bonuses for exploration
and prospecting permits. On the other hand, prudent management of
these resources requires that the Bureau and the tribes inform them-
selves of the location and extent of these resources. Many tribes,
however, are seriously discouraged by the fact that information
developed may be disclosed by the Bureau upon request of other
parties who have pecuniary interests adverse to those of the tribes.
Surely, the purposes of this law are not served when it redounds
to the benefit of already profitable commercial entities at the
expense of the Nation's impecunious Indian wards, whom the Government
has pledged to protect from such exploitation.
\W/h,\