a
This was a joint request for inserting this language so that we had
something to enforce it with, and I believe the failure to do so has
seriously shortened any possibility of using that as an enforcement
tool, assuming ongoing violations. [91]
Asked why the
Bureau had deemed it appropriate to turn administration of the court
over to the tribe; Secretary Swimmer indicated that "[it] is the intent
of the Bureau to withdraw from all CFR courts as soon as practicable."
[92] He later explained:Our
position is that we wish to get the tribe in a position of operating
its court system as quickly as possible and begin working with the
tribe to try to have a quality court system as soon as possible out
__________[91] Id. at 61. Asked to comment on the feasibility of pursuing a contract action based upon the theory that the ICRA is applicable Federal law under the language of the contract, Mr. Arnold responsed:
The question is--we are really not talking about an enforcement provision per se. We're talking about a cancellation provision. In other words, we're going at it where it hurts, with money.
....
I can get a lot of things accomplished by not giving people money. In other words, if I've got $308 million, which is what I think the Federal Government will give to Indian allotments this year under the Entitlement Act, believe me, I can do a lot with that in terms of contractual language, language that would be agreeable both to the tribal programs and to the Federal attorneys.
[92] Id. at 26.
