The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“REPEAL OF TRADING WITH INDIANS ACT” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S9316-S9317 on July 31, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
REPEAL OF TRADING WITH INDIANS ACT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3215 which was received from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3215) to amend title 18, United States Code, to repeal the provision relating to Federal employees contracting or trading with Indians.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
trading with indians act repeal
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of this legislation, H.R. 3215, to repeal the Trading with Indians Act. I would note that the Senate has twice approved measures to repeal this 19th century law--in November 1993, and again last October as part of a bill making technical corrections in Indian laws.
Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, John McCain, who joined me in sponsoring the Senate companion bill, S. 199, and who encouraged his committee to incorporate it into last year's technical corrections measure. I also want to commend Congressman J.D. Hayworth for championing the legislation in the House on behalf of his native American constituents. Without his active support, it is safe to say that the House would not have acted on the measure this year.
When the Trading with Indians Act was enacted in 1834, it had a very legitimate purpose: to protect native Americans from being unduly influenced by Federal employees.
But, a law that started out with good intentions more than a century ago has become unnecessary, and even counterproductive, today. It established an absolute prohibition against commercial trading with Indians by employees of the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The problem is that the prohibition does not merely apply to employees, but to family members as well. It extends to transactions in which a Federal employee has an interest, either in his or her own name, or in the name of another person, including a spouse, where the employee benefits or appears to benefit from such interest.
The penalties for violations can be severe: a fine of not more than
$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both. The act further provides that any employee who is found to be in violation should be terminated from Federal employment.
This all means that employees could be subject to criminal penalties or fired from their jobs, not for any real or perceived wrongdoing on their part, but merely because they are married to individuals who do business on an Indian reservation. The nexus of marriage is enough to invoke penalties. It means, for example, that an Indian Health Service employee whose spouse operates a small business on a reservation could be fined, imprisoned, or fired. It means that a family member could not apply for a small business loan without jeopardizing the employee's job.
The legislation before us today will correct that injustice without subjecting native Americans to the kind of abuse that prompted enactment of the law 160 years ago. The protection that the Trading with Indians Act originally offered can now be provided under the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Government Employees. The intent here is to provide adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest, while not unreasonably denying individuals and their families the ability to live and work--and create jobs--in their communities.
Both Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Interior Department Assistant Secretary Ada Deer have expressed support for the legislation to repeal the 1834 act. Secretary Shalala, in a letter dated November 17, 1993, noted that repeal could improve the ability of IHS to recruit and retain medical professional employees in remote locations. It is more difficult for IHS to recruit and retain medical professionals to work in remote reservation facilities if their spouses are prohibited from engaging in business activities with the local Indian residents, particularly since employment opportunities for spouses are often very limited in these locations.
Let me cite one very specific case in which the law has come into play. The case, which surfaced a couple of years ago, involved Ms. Karen Arviso, who served as the Navajo area IHS health promotion and disease prevention coordinator. Ms. Arviso was one of those people who played a particularly critical role during the outbreak of the hantavirus in the Navajo area at the time. She put in long hours traveling to communities across the reservation in an effort to educate people about this mysterious disease.
Instead of thanks for her dedication and hard work, Ms. Arviso received a notice that she was to be fired because her husband applied for a small business loan from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Trading with Indians Act would require it. What sense does that make?
Mr. President, repeal of the Trading with Indians Act is long overdue. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation again today, and finally send it on to the President for his signature.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3215 a bill to repeal certain provisions of laws relating to trading with Indians and to urge its immediate adoption. I am pleased to be joined by Senator John Kyl in sponsoring S. 199, the Senate companion to H.R. 3215 to repeal the Trading with Indians Act.
H.R. 3215 would address a longstanding problem in Indian policy. I have worked extensively with my colleagues from Arizona, Senator Kyl and Congressman Hayworth, to repeal the Trading with Indians Act. The Trading with Indians Act was originally enacted in the 1800's to protect Indians from unscrupulous Indian agents and other Federal employees. The prohibitions in the Trading with Indians Act were designed to prevent Federal employees from using their positions of trust to engage in private business deals that exploited Indians. These prohibitions carried criminal penalties including a fine of up to
$5,000 and removal from Federal employment. As time has passed, it has become apparent that the law is doing more harm than good.
The Trading With Indians Act has had significant adverse impacts on employee retention in the Indian Health Service [IHS] and the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. The problems stemming from the Trading with Indians Act are well-documented. The way that the law is written allows for the conviction of a Federal employee even when the employee is not directly involved in a business deal with an Indian or an Indian tribe. Because the prohibitions in the Trading with Indians Act apply to the spouses of IHS and BIA employees, the adverse impacts are far-reaching. For example, if a spouse of an IHS employee is engaged in a business that is wholly unrelated to the BIA or the IHS and does not transact business with the BIA or the IHS, the spouse is still in violation of the Trading with Indians Act. Employee retention in often rural and economically depressed Indian communities is difficult enough without the additional deterrent of an outdated prohibition to force out productive and experienced employees who might otherwise stay. The act even prohibits Indians from the same tribe from engaging in business agreements or contracts entirely unrelated to the scope of the Federal employee's employment. Because the act applies to agreements between all BIA and IHS employees and all Indians regardless of their proximity or range of influence, it would prohibit a BIA or IHS employee on the Navajo reservation in Arizona from selling his car to a Penobscot Indian from Maine.
As tribal governments become more sophisticated and more Indian people become better educated and able to adequately protect themselves against unscrupulous adversaries, the Federal Government must respect these changes by repealing outdated and paternalistic laws which are still on the books. Respect for Indian sovereignty demands that the relics of paternalism fall away as tribal governments expand and grow toward self-reliance and independence. It is clear that although this statute served an admirable purpose in the 1800's, it has become anachronistic and should be repealed. The important policies reflected in the Trading with Indians Act are now covered by the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch adequately protects the Indian people and tribes served and provides simple guidelines to follow for all Federal employees when it comes to contracts with Indian people and Indian tribes.
I would like to express my appreciation for the work of Senator Kyl and Congressman Hayworth in the development of this bill and I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3215. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Kyl be included in the Record immediately following my remarks.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3215) was deemed read the third time and passed.
____________________
