“Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968”
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. 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."  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__________
 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.
 Id. at 26.