U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–534 PDF 2015

IMPLEMENTING THE COBELL SETTLEMENT: MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, April 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–67 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, April 3, 2014 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Azure, Mark L., President, Fort Belknap Tribal Council, Fort Belknap 

Indian Community ........................................................................................ 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Berrey, John, Chairman, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma .................................. 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Burke, Gary, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation .......................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 38 

Finley, Michael O., Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 23 

Roberts, Lawrence S., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 11 

Stafne, Grant, Councilman, Tribal Executive Board, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes ................................................................................. 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 47 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon, Prepared statement of ................................................................ 54 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 54 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTING 

THE COBELL SETTLEMENT: MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Thursday, April 3, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Young, Daines, Hastings, Hanabusa, 

and Grijalva. 

Mr. YOUNG. The subcommittee will come to order. I note a presence of a quorum. We are meeting here today to hear testimony on 

implementing the Cobell Settlement. And under the Committee 

Rule there will be an opening statement by the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member, and anybody else can submit their statements. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Before we start the day’s hearing I want to say a 

word about Jimmy Newton, Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe. Chairman Newton passed away on Monday at the age of 37. 

Jimmy began his service to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe 2003. 

In 2011 he was the youngest person to be elected to lead the tribe. 

Jimmy often traveled to Washington to advocate for his tribe, as 

well as the Ute Mountain Utes and the Utes of Utah. 

Under his leadership, the Southern Ute Tribe continued in its 

role as premier Indian tribal producer of natural gas and other resources, and sought to assist other tribes to improve their economic 

lives and the lives of their people. Men of Jimmy’s character and 

compassion are rare, and we were lucky to have known him, even 

for the brief period he was with us. 

Today the subcommittee will review the Land Buy-Back Program of the Tribal Nations. This is a $1.9 billion program through which 

the Secretary of the Interior will purchase, on a willing-seller basis, 

fractionated Indian lands and consolidate them in tribal ownership. 

Fractionation is a phenomenon that has plagued Indian Country 

for more than a century, and is the major reason why large tracts 

of Indian lands are unused. 

I voted for the Claims Resolution Act, but it was with reservations. Several aspects of the deal were flawed, and neither the 

administration nor the plaintiffs agreed to fix them. While thenRanking Member Doc Hastings filed an amendment to improve the 

Settlement in accordance with resolutions adopted by major tribal 

organizations, House Majority Democrat leaders refused to allow 

2 

any changes. Nevertheless, Congress determined that with its 

flaws, the deal was better than more years of fruitless litigation. 

Unfortunately, the Settlement’s flaws identified by tribal leaders 

and the major tribal associations in 2010 are causing real problems 

that we will hear about today. The purpose of today’s hearing is to 

examine what is going on with the Buy-Back Program, what is 

going wrong with it, what is going right with it, and what can Congress do to improve it in consultation with tribal leaders and individual land owners. 

The Land Buy-Back Program was slow to launch. It appears the 

Department has recently made large purchase offers acquired by 

thousands of acres of land, and built up an Indian education scholarship fund. It must be pure coincidence that these good things 

began to occur only after the Department learned about this hearing. 

Before I turn to the Ranking Member for her opening statement, 

I would like to comment on a remark made in the written statement by Mr. Roberts today. Mr. Roberts says the Cobell Settlement 

‘‘opened a new chapter’’. This phrase, ‘‘opened a new chapter,’’ has 

been a refrain by this administration with respect to tribal relations, as though no deal was possible, but for this President. In 

fact, the Cobell Settlement is merely a final version of legislation 

originally proposed in 2005 by House and Senate committee leaders 

following months of intense mediation they supervised. The only 

other major difference between the 2005 deal and the present one 

is this administration offers less to the Indians and more to the 

trial lawyers. And that really upsets me. 

The Settlement is not the opening of a new chapter, but the continuation of a story that has been written. There remains work to 

do, and I look forward to hearing from the tribal leaders on how 

to make the Buy-Back Program work to their benefit. 

And, with that, I will recognize the Ranking Member. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND

ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

Before we start today’s hearing, I want to say a word about Jimmy Newton, 

Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Chairman Newton passed away on 

Monday at the age of 37. 

Jimmy began his service to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in 2003 and in 2011, 

he became the youngest person to be elected to lead the tribe. Jimmy often traveled 

to Washington to advocate for his tribe as well as the Ute Mountain Utes and the 

Utes of Utah. 

Under his leadership, the Southern Ute Tribe continued in its role as the premier 

Indian tribal producer of natural gas and other resources and sought to assist other 

tribes improve their economies and the lives of their people. Men of Jimmy Newton’s 

character and compassion are rare and we are lucky to have known him, even for 

the brief period he was with us. 

Today the subcommittee will review the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal 

Nations. This is a $1.9 billion program through which the Secretary of the Interior 

will purchase on a willing-seller basis fractionated Indian lands and consolidate 

them in tribal ownership. Fractionation is a phenomenon that has plagued Indian 

Country for more than a century and it is a major reason why large tracts of Indian 

lands are unused. 

I voted for the Claims Resolution Act, but it was with reservations. Several aspects of the deal were flawed and neither the Administration nor the Plaintiffs 

agreed to fix them. While then-Ranking Member Doc Hastings filed an amendment 

to improve the Settlement in accordance with resolutions adopted by major tribal 

organizations, House Majority Democrat Leaders refused to allow any changes. 

3 

Nonetheless, Congress determined that with its flaws, the deal was better than 

more years of fruitless litigation. 

Unfortunately, the Settlement’s flaws identified by tribal leaders and the major 

tribal associations in 2010 are causing real problems that we will hear about today. 

A purpose of today’s hearing is to examine what’s going right with the Buy-Back 

Program, what’s going wrong with it, and what can Congress do to improve it in 

consultation with tribal leaders and individual Indian landowners. 

The land buyback program was slow to launch. It appears the Department has 

recently made large purchase offers, acquired thousands of acres of lands, and built 

up an Indian education scholarship fund. It must be pure coincidence that these 

good things began to occur only after the Department learned about this hearing. 

Before I turn to the Ranking Member for her opening statement, I must comment 

on a remark made in the written statement of Mr. Roberts, today’s Administration 

witness. 

Mr. Roberts says the Cobell Settlement legislation [quote] ‘‘opened a new chapter 

. . .’’ [end quote]. 

This phrase—‘‘opened a new chapter’’—has been a refrain of the Obama administration with respect to tribal relations. As though no deal was possible but for this 

President. 

In fact, the Cobell Settlement is merely the final version of legislation originally 

proposed in 2005 by House and Senate Committee Leaders following months of intense mediation they supervised. 

About the only major difference between the 2005 deal and the present one is that 

this administration offered less to the Indians and more to the trial lawyers. 

The Settlement is not the opening of a new chapter, but the continuation of a 

story still being written. 

There remains work to do and I look forward to hearing from tribal leaders on 

how to make the Buy-Back Program work to their benefit. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Chairman Young. And thank you to 

our witnesses. I know our tribal leaders have come a long way to 

be here, and it is good to see you. 

Mr. Chairman, for more than a century, the Federal Government 

has been the trustee of funds for individual Indians. The amounts 

in these funds are generated from leases on lands held in trust for 

purposes such as grazing, timber, agriculture, and energy development. Over the years, the United States has struggled to execute 

its fiduciary duties with proper care. Systemic and appalling 

breaches of fiduciary duty resulted in over a decade of class action 

litigation, culminating in the 2009 Cobell Settlement. 

Under the terms of the Settlement, the United States has agreed 

to pay a total of $3.4 billion to compensate trust beneficiaries, $1.5 

billion of which was to pay directly to a class of approximately 

500,000 individuals, and $1.9 billion of which was to be used to address the problem of land fractionation on Indian reservations 

around the country. The Settlement, which passed Congress in late 

2010, became final in November of 2012, following the exhaustion 

of appeals through the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Since that time, the Department of the Interior has begun to implement the Settlement. The first round of payments to individuals 

was sent out in 2013, and I understand a second round of payments should be sent out later this year. I am hoping the Department can shed some light on the timeframe of those for today’s 

hearing. 

The Department is now also working on consolidated fractionated 

land shares with the $1.9 billion dollars allocated for that purpose, 

4 

and have begun making offers to tribes. The Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs had a hearing specifically on implementation of the 

Land Buy-Back Program late last year, at which tribes expressed 

some concern over the Department’s methods. I hope that the Department can inform us on how they are responding to those concerns today. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership in holding this hearing, 

and I regret that, due to another commitment, I won’t be able to 

stay for the entire duration. I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t 

address a few issues before I left. 

First, I know that the Department has been working hard to implement the Settlement. But with regard to the Land Buy-Back 

Program, they only have 10 years to spend the $1.9 billion meant 

to consolidate fractionated land shares. I think it is wise for Congress to check on their progress now. And I think we should be 

open to doing whatever we need to to help them implement the 

Buy-Back Program in a way that will benefit tribes. And that was 

what its intended purpose was. 

Second, I want to express my concern with some of the rhetoric 

associated with the Cobell Settlement. Specifically, I take issue 

with the way Settlement funding was portrayed in the Majority’s 

views and estimates letter to the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 

budget. Settlement funds are not appropriations, nor are they 

hand-outs. They are necessary compensation to resolve a legal dispute. Let us not forget that key point when we discuss the dollar 

amounts associated with the Cobell Settlement; it is what the government owes to make things right. 

Finally, the grave mismanagement of funds that precipitated the 

Cobell Settlement can never be allowed to happen again. The only 

way the United States laid claim to the entire continent was with 

the acquiescence of tribal governments that traded land for special 

rights and privileges in treaties and other legal documents. The 

United States took on the responsibility to act as the fiduciary to 

the various tribes of indigenous peoples. It did this willingly, and 

it got a much greater benefit than it has given back. I say all this 

because the only way such an outrageous breach of fiduciary duty 

could occur, as that precipitating the Cobell Settlement litigation, 

is for there to be an institutionalized culture that does not understand and take seriously this reality. Let the Cobell Settlement be 

a reminder. 

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, our Nation’s history is littered with 

dark periods in which it was not living up to the duty it took on 

toward tribes. And each time it caused us to look back and have 

to repair the outcomes of its misguided policies. Yet, too often, I see 

us repeating the same mistakes. I see it in the Supreme Court’s 

Carcieri decision and various trust cases, which construe that responsibility narrowly. I see it in a need for Native Hawaiian recognition and the lack of support from some of my colleagues for 

Native Hawaiian programs. 

None of these concepts should be issues for debate. The Secretary 

of the Interior was permitted to take land into trust for all federally recognized tribes because Assimilation Era policies wrongfully 

took away over 90 million acres of tribal lands. The United States 

serves as a trustee toward tribes because, in exchange, it was able 

5 

to spread across the continent and become the world power that it 

is today. Programs aimed at benefiting Native Hawaiians were put 

in place because the United States was complicit in the overthrow 

of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is time for us to stop making the 

same mistakes over and over again. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLEEN HANABUSA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

Thank you, Chairman Young. 

And thank you, to our witnesses—I know our tribal leaders have come a long way 

to be here. It’s good to see you. 

Mr. Chairman, for more than a century the Federal Government has been the 

trustee of funds for individual Indians. The amounts in these funds are generated 

from leases on lands held in trust for purposes such as grazing, timber, agriculture, 

and energy development. Over the years, the United States has struggled to execute 

its fiduciary duties with proper care. Systemic and appalling breaches of fiduciary 

duty resulted in over a decade of class action litigation culminating in the 2009 

Cobell Settlement. 

Under the terms of the settlement, the United States has agreed to pay a total of $3.4 billion to compensate trust beneficiaries—$1.5 billion of which is to be paid 

directly to a class of approximately 500,000 individuals and $1.9 billion of which is 

to be used to address the problem of land fractionation on Indian reservations 

around the country. 

The settlement, which passed Congress in late 2010, became final in November 

of 2012 following the exhaustion of appeals through the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 

that time, the Department of the Interior has begun to implement the settlement. 

The first round of payments to individuals was sent out in 2013, and I understand 

the second round of payments should be sent out later this year. I am hoping the 

Department can shed some light on the timeframe for those today. 

The Department is now also working on consolidating fractionated land shares with the $1.9 billion allocated for that purpose and have begun making offers to 

tribes. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing specifically on implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program late last year, at which tribes expressed 

some concerns over the Department’s methods. I hope that the Department can inform us on how they are responding to those concerns today. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership in holding this hearing and I regret 

that, due to another commitment, I won’t be able to stay for its entire duration. I 

would be remiss however, if I didn’t address a few issues before I leave. First, I 

know the Department has been working hard to implement the settlement, but with 

regard to the Land Buy-Back Program, they only have 10 years to spend the $1.9 

billion meant to consolidate fractionated land shares. I think it wise for Congress 

to check on their progress now and I think we should be open to doing whatever 

we need to do to help them implement the Buy-Back Program in a way that will 

benefit tribes as it is intended. 

Second, I want to express my concern with some of the rhetoric associated with 

the Cobell Settlement. Specifically, I take issue with the way settlement funding 

was portrayed in the Majority’s Views and Estimates letter on the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2015 budget. Settlement funds are not appropriations nor are they handouts. 

They are necessary compensation to resolve a legal dispute. Let us not forget that 

key point when we discuss the dollar amounts associated with the Cobell Settlement. 

Finally, the grave mismanagement of funds that precipitated the Cobell Settlement can never be allowed to happen again. The only way the United States laid 

claim to an entire continent was with the acquiescence of tribal governments that 

traded land for special rights and privileges enshrined in treaties and other legal 

documents. The United States took on the responsibility to act as a fiduciary to the 

various tribes of indigenous peoples—it did this willingly and it got a much greater 

benefit than it has given back. I say all of this because the only way such an outrageous breach of fiduciary duty could occur—as that precipitating the Cobell litigation—is for there to be an institutionalized culture that does not understand and 

take seriously this reality. Let the Cobell Settlement be a reminder. 

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, our Nation’s history is littered with dark periods in 

which it was not living up to the duty it took on toward tribes and each time, it 

caused us to look back and have to repair the outcomes of misguided policies. Yet, 

too often I see us repeating the same mistakes. I see it in the Supreme Court’s 

6 

Carcieri Decision and various trust cases which construe that responsibility narrowly. I see it in the need for Native Hawaiian Recognition and the lack of support 

from some of our colleagues for Native Hawaiian programs. None of these concepts 

should be issues for debate. The Secretary of the Interior was permitted to take land 

into trust for all federally recognized tribes because Assimilation Era policies wrongfully took away over 90 million acres of tribal lands. The United States serves as 

a trustee toward tribes because in exchange, it was able to spread across the continent and become a world power. Programs aimed at benefiting Native Hawaiians 

were put in place because the United States was complicit in the overthrow of the 

Kingdom of Hawaii. 

It is time for us to stop making the same mistakes over and over again. 

I yield back. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And I yield back, and I do want to say something. You saw me smile when he made a comment about trial lawyers. He does it on purpose, because I am a lawyer. It wasn’t about 

anything else he said, it was because he was taking his usual ding 

at me. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HANABUSA. But I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the madam for her comments about this bill, 

and rightfully so. And also the last part of it, too. Thank you. 

At this time I would like to recognize the Chairman, Doc 

Hastings, for introduction of his witness. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for having this hearing today. It is my pleasure to introduce 

the second witness, at least on my list, Chairman Michael Finley 

of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville. Chairman Finley and I 

became acquainted when this issue was going through its process. 

And at that time, my district did not include part of the Colville 

Reservation. But I felt that the concerns that he was talking to me 

about that time warranted more of my involvement. And, as you 

mentioned in your opening statement, we did have an amendment 

to make some corrections. 

But, since redistricting now, part of the Colville Reservation is 

in my district. Although I know that the Chairman does not live 

in my district, I can claim at least part of him. But it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to the committee, Michael Finley, who 

is the Chairman of the Confederated Colvilles. Michael, good seeing 

you. 

Mr. YOUNG. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, welcome, by the 

way. 

And now, Mr. Daines, would you introduce the other witness that 

comes from your district? 

Mr. DAINES. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is truly my honor 

to introduce two distinguished tribal leaders from Montana. The 

first is President Mark Azure of the Fort Belknap Tribal Council 

from the Fort Belknap Indian Community. As I have traveled 

around Montana, I have heard a lot from Indian Country related 

to this issue of the Cobell Settlement and fractionated lands. In 

fact, in Montana, we have seven federally recognized tribes, and 

have some of the most fractionated country in the United States. 

In fact at Fort Belknap, there are 5,352 tracks held in trust, and 

3,024 fractionated tracks with purchasable interest alone. 

7 

In addition to President Azure, we are also pleased to have 

Councilman Grant Stafne, on the Tribal Executive Board of the 

Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes. Again, they are in the Fort 

Peck. We have 7,463 tracks held in trust, 4,005 are in 21 

fractionated tracks with purchasable interest. 

So, I am grateful to have these two leaders from Montana with 

us here today who are living right in the middle of what is going 

on with the Cobell Settlement. And, with all due respect to our distinguished Ranking Member, I do think the lawyers seem to be 

winning right now, and the folks on the other end aren’t. So let’s 

see if we can change that score. 

Mr. YOUNG. I do think the gentleman, and I can’t agree with you 

more, is right, the idea of this was to solve a problem. And I will 

tell you one thing, because there is a time limit, if we can’t do anything else we ought to extend that time limit. Because my understanding, the settlement, if it isn’t dispersed and making these 

lands consolidated, the money goes back to the Treasury. And it is 

a settlement, and it shouldn’t do that. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope you listened to that very carefully. 

And I want to welcome the panel and thank you for being here. 

Mr. Roberts, you are the first one that is going to testify. And 

I apologize for you being at the end of the table. There is nothing 

significant about that, and I want you to know that, Mr. Roberts. 

You are in good shape. Go ahead. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I am in good company here with all these tribal 

leaders, Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE S. ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ROBERTS. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Chairman 

Hastings, Ranking Member Hanabusa, other members of the committee. Thank you for inviting us here to testify today. My name 

is Larry Roberts. I am the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs. I answer directly to Assistant Secretary Kevin 

Washburn. And I am a member of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin. 

In 2010, Congress did enact this historic legislation. And, Chairman, I heard you take a quote out of the new chapter there. And 

I think what we really meant by, or what I meant by that new 

chapter language is that over the years that Cobell was being litigated it really caused a lot of consternation between tribes and the 

Department of the Interior, such the fact that Assistant Secretary 

Washburn says all the time if Cobell hadn’t been settled, he would 

not have taken that job, because the discord between Interior and 

tribes was palpable. 

And so, by settling that litigation, it allowed us to move forward. 

And what we are focused on at the Department of the Interior here 

is the legislation that you all passed provides $1.9 billion to return 

lands to tribes. And all of the future income that is returned, all 

the future income of those lands that are returned to tribes, that 

future income is going to belong to tribes. 

8 

And so, not only that, but by purchasing these fractionated interests, and we have heard about the large amounts there, tribal 

members who want to sell, it is a voluntary program. If they want 

to sell they are going to receive fair market value, and they are 

going to infuse money into their tribal communities. 

So, approximately 90 percent of all the purchasable fractional 

interests are located within 40 reservations. So 90 percent of the 

interests are in 40 reservations that we are aiming to consolidate. 

The Pine Ridge Reservation alone accounts for 8 percent of all of 

those interests. In Montana and Wyoming, if you look at those reservations in both Montana and Wyoming, we have targeted over 

$406 million to purchase lands to return to tribes. 

Tribal leadership and involvement is critical, absolutely critical, 

to the success of the program. We, Kevin and I, and the Department of the Interior, know that the best proponents of this program 

are tribal leaders themselves. We most recently held an open solicitation to request expressions of interest from tribes wanting to participate in the program. Nearly 60 tribes responded. And that 60- 

tribe response rate, it shows the support and interest in the goals 

of the program by tribal leadership. 

While the Department is willing to run a program without a formal tribal cooperative agreement, if a tribe prefers, the Department hopes to enter into cooperative agreements with as many 

tribes as possible to implement the Buy-Back Program. Again, we 

know that tribes are going to be most effective in explaining the 

benefits and talking about the program to their own communities. 

With regard to cooperative agreements being key, we have announced three cooperative agreements with tribes, and we anticipate announcing more soon. One goal, a goal of the Buy-Back 

Program, is to spend as much of the fund as possible on acquiring 

land, and as little as possible on the administration of the BuyBack Program. So I know tribes are concerned about the cooperative agreement process. Heard directly from them about it, the 

cooperative agreement process, being burdensome and overly 

complex, and we are going to look at ways to improve that process 

so that everyone’s time and attention can focus on making the program as successful as possible. 

We have also heard from tribes that the fund should be invested 

to generate interest, and that the program should be eligible for 

638 contracting. The legislation doesn’t provide for the Department 

to either invest the fund or to enter into 638 contracts. 

Over the last 4 months, the Buy-Back Program has returned the 

equivalent of over 40,000 acres, collectively, to the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe, the Makah Tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. We have 

issued over 18,000 offers to individuals. And, in fact, we have returned over 40,000 acres specifically, just to the Oglala Sioux 

Nation, alone. And we have made payments of over $14 million 

over the last 4 months, over $14 million, to Pine Ridge allottees. 

So, it is support from the leadership of Chairman Greene from 

Makah, it is support from tribal leadership, like President Brewer 

from Oglala Sioux, that has been critical to this progress. 

So I think the level of interest expressed by tribes over the past 

year demonstrates the importance of the program, and our collective desire to make it be successful. I know all of these tribal leadVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\COMPLETE\03AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87534.TXT MARK
9 

ers are here today because they want the program to be successful, 

and they want it to be implemented within Indian Country. 

Restoring tribal homelands is one of our highest priorities, and 

the interests are almost entirely within existing reservations. 

We appreciate the committee’s interests in the Buy-Back 

Program, and I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows: 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE S. ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

I. INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of 

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the 

Interior’s (Department) statement at this oversight hearing on ‘‘Implementing the 

Cobell Settlement.’’ 

In 2010, Congress enacted historic legislation to bring to a close the Cobell litigation. After decades of contentious litigation that affected virtually every aspect of 

the Department’s relationship with tribes, the legislation opened a new chapter by 

providing, among other things, $1.9 billion to restore fractionated lands to tribal 

trust ownership. This $1.9 billion fund helps to reverse the impacts of the repudiated allotment and assimilation policy. That destructive policy resulted in the loss 

of approximately 90 million acres of tribal lands in less than 50 years. Although 

Congress repudiated that policy nearly 80 years ago, its impact on nearly every aspect of tribal life—whether it be law enforcement, economic development or day-today governance—continues to be felt every day in tribal communities. 

The magnitude of fractionation is enormous. There are over 2.9 million trust or 

restricted fractional interests spread across more than 150 reservations that are 

owned by more than 243,000 individuals. Approximately 90 percent of the purchasable fractional interests are located within 40 reservations. The Pine Ridge Reservation alone accounts for over 8 percent of the purchasable fractional interests. 

The Cobell case came about in part because of a very serious problem created by 

Federal laws on allotment. The settlement was designed to address some of those 

longstanding problems. The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back 

Program) is one tool that will help alleviate the impacts of fractionation. A goal of 

the Buy-Back Program is to spend as much of the Fund as possible on acquiring 

land and as little as possible on administration of the Buy-Back Program. Through 

purchases from willing sellers, the Buy-Back Program is transferring trust and restricted interests directly to tribes so that tribes can utilize the land. For example, 

over the last 4 months the Buy-Back Program has transferred the equivalent of over 

30,000 acres of land to the Oglala Sioux Tribe. In the short term, much of the 

money paid to obtain the interests will be spent in these tribal communities. In the 

long-term, transferring millions of acres of land to tribes will ultimately strengthen 

each tribal community and generate economic and generational benefits to those 

communities. Tribal acquisition of fractionated lands will ‘‘unlock’’ those lands, making them available to support economic development to benefit tribal members. This 

important work can succeed only with the collaborative involvement of tribal leaders 

and their communities. As sales occur, the Buy-Back Program will contribute part 

of the Fund (up to $60 million) to the Cobell Education Scholarship Fund—an initial 

contribution to the scholarship fund, totaling nearly $580,000, has already begun. 

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BUY-BACK PROGRAM

The Cobell Settlement became final on November 24, 2012, following the exhaustion of appeals through the U.S. Supreme Court. Less than a month following final 

approval, the Department of the Interior established the Land Buy-Back Program 

for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back Program) and published an Initial Implementation 

Plan. The Department engaged in government-to-government consultation on the 

Plan—with consultations in Minneapolis (January 2013); Rapid City (February 

2013); Seattle (February 2013) and held numerous meetings with tribes and intertribal organizations. In recognition of the complexity and importance of the BuyBack Program, it was established in the Office of the Deputy Secretary. The 

Department also established an Oversight Board, chaired by the Deputy Secretary. 

The Oversight Board includes the Solicitor, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, 

10 

the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Special Trustee for American 

Indians. 

We are working diligently to implement the Buy-Back Program. Since November 

24, 2012, we have: 

• Sent offers to nearly 19,000 landowners exceeding $150 million. 

• Transferred land to tribal trust ownership for three tribes, totaling over 

40,000 acres through purchases from willing sellers. 

• Paid over $12 million dollars to Indian landowners across the United States. 

• Entered into cooperative agreements, totaling over $1.4 million, with the 

Oglala Sioux Tribe, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe, and Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, enabling in part the involvement of over 20 full-time tribal 

employees. 

• Hired 59 full-time employees and expended approximately $8 million of the 

overall implementation/administrative portion of the fund: 

—Outreach $1.8 million; 

—Land Research $1.1 million; 

—Valuation $1.2 million; 

—Acquisition $2.5 million; and 

—Trust Commission $900 thousand. 

Some of these expenditures included one-time, up-front costs, such as the 

Trust Commission, mapping, and equipment. 

• Held an open solicitation (from November 2013–March 2014) to encourage 

tribes from the most fractionated locations to express interest in developing 

cooperative agreements based on tribal priorities. 

• Communicated directly with at least 50 tribes (28 with jurisdiction over the 

most fractionated reservations), including meetings with several on or near 

their reservations. 

• Obtained independent, outside review of the Program’s appraisal methodology 

by The Appraisal Foundation (TAF). 

• Launched a substantive website, www.doi.gov/buybackprogram, to provide information about the Buy-Back Program, especially for tribes and individual 

landowners. 

• Expanded our Trust Beneficiary Call Center to answer questions and register 

‘‘interested sellers.’’ 

• Established policies such as flexible purchase ceilings for fractionated reservations to ensure that as many reservations as possible can benefit from the 

Buy-Back Program. 

• Set a base payment amount of $75 for submitting an accepted offer and a 

base payment of $7.50 per acre for subsurface or mineral ownership interests 

with nominal or no value. 

Tribal leadership and involvement are crucial to the success of the Buy-Back Program. While the Department is willing to run the program without a formal tribal 

cooperative agreement if a tribe prefers, the Department hopes to enter cooperative 

agreements with many tribes to implement the Buy-Back Program through a Federal-tribal partnership, which will promote tribal ownership of program, minimize 

administrative costs, and improve overall effectiveness and efficiency. 

Accordingly, we held an open solicitation to request expressions of interest from 

the tribes having the most fractionated reservations. As a result, nearly 60 tribes 

have submitted a cooperative agreement application or letter of interest to the 

Program. The open solicitation facilitates increased tribal input in the timing and 

sequencing of Program implementation. The Department will rely on this tribal interest along with other factors, such as degree of ownership overlap, geographic 

diversity, and appraisal complexity, to guide implementation of the Buy-Back Program. The Department will implement the Buy-Back Program in a flexible manner 

and continue to update its approach to reflect lessons-learned, best practices, and 

tribal involvement. 

III. LESSONS LEARNED

The Buy-Back Program is an effort of significant scope and complexity, which has 

great importance to Indian Country. As we continue to implement the Buy-Back 

Program, we have incorporated lessons learned, best practices, and tribal feedback 

to enhance the overall effectiveness of the Program’s implementation strategy. We 

have heard from tribes on a number of issues, including the cooperative agreement 

process, scheduling, and reporting on both the expenditure of administrative costs 

and the acceptance of offers on reservations. 

11 

Many features of the Buy-Back Program design have come as a direct result of 

tribal consultation, such as the need for a minimum base payment to sellers and 

provision of indirect costs. 

Tribes are concerned that the cooperative agreement process is burdensome and 

overly complex. We have developed instructional materials, hosted a webinar for 

tribal leaders, and provided one-on-one technical support to tribes. In addition, we 

revised the cooperative agreement forms, and we will continue to look at ways to 

improve the process so that everyone’s time and attention can focus on making the 

Program as successful as possible. 

The Buy-Back Program also responded to lessons learned regarding scheduling. 

We heard from Indian Country that all fractionated locations should have the opportunity to participate, not simply the locations with 90 percent of fractionated lands. 

As a result, the Program has pursued opportunities to include less fractionated locations in early implementation efforts, which will help us develop a comprehensive 

strategy for the purchase of fractional interests at as many less fractionated locations as possible. We also recognize that the Department cannot develop an implementation schedule without input from tribes. The Program’s open solicitation 

garnered several cooperative agreement applications and letters of interest. We are 

currently evaluating the applications and determining which locations can be completed most efficiently. 

Indian Country has also called for information on expenditures and the acceptance of offers on reservations. The Department is committed to reporting this 

information on a regular basis. As described above, the Program has spent approximately $8 million dollars for implementation. In December 2013, the Program made 

approximately 3,000 offers to individuals that own interests at the Pine Ridge, 

Rosebud, and Makah reservations. The offers totaled approximately $50 million. Approximately 29 percent of the initial offers set out have been accepted, resulting in 

payments to landowners totaling nearly $11 million and the consolidation and restoration of over 30,000 acres to tribes. In March 2014, the Program sent additional 

purchase offers to nearly 16,000 individual landowners in the Pine Ridge Reservation for a total amount that exceeds $100 million; approximately 10,000 more acres 

have already been restored to the Oglala Sioux Tribe based on early results of these 

additional offers. In the near future, the Buy-Back Program will mail additional offers to individuals that own interests at the Rosebud and Makah reservations. 

In addition to the areas discussed above, Interior has implemented changes in response to lessons learned at these first few locations. For example, we have expanded our national outreach given that landowners on the Pine Ridge Reservation 

resided in all 50 States as well as Canada, Germany, England, Italy, Qatar, Taiwan 

and the Philippines. We have updated our deed application to address feedback from 

landowners, and improved information on our website based on questions from the 

field. We are constantly seeking ways to incorporate feedback and improve the BuyBack Program. 

Finally, we note that some tribal leaders have voiced concern that the $1.9 billion 

Land Consolidation Fund (Fund) is not currently being invested. Unfortunately, the 

Claims Resolution Act of 2010 does not provide the Department with authority to 

invest the Fund to generate interest. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The level of interest expressed by tribes over the past year demonstrates the importance of the Buy-Back Program and our collective desire for it to be successful. 

Transferring millions of acres directly to tribes will provide countless opportunities 

for this and future generations. Restoring tribal homelands is one of our highest priorities and these interests are almost entirely within existing Indian reservations. 

We appreciate the committee’s interest in the Buy-Back Program and look forward 

to answering any questions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO LAWRENCE S. ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Questions Submitted by Chairman Don Young 

Question 1. In March the Buy-Back Program made more than $100 million in offers to owners of fractional interests at the Pine Ridge Reservation and these individuals have 45 days to accept or reject the offers. What is the acceptance rate so 

far for these offers? 

12 

Answer. As of September 29, 2014, the Department has an approximate acceptance rate of 48 percent based on the three sets of offers to landowners with interests 

at the Pine Ridge Reservation. The Program’s acceptance rate on all of the offers 

that have been sent to landowners with interest is 36 percent. 

Question 2. In the hearing, you heard from Chairman Finley that 4 years ago the 

Administration opposed changing the Cobell Settlement Agreement to allow tribes 

to contract the Buy-Back program under the Indian Self-Determination Act. Is this 

still the Administration’s position? 

Answer. The Department strongly supports the spirit of self-determination and 

self-governance. Although the Cobell Settlement Agreement (Settlement) and the 

Claims Resolution Act do not allow the use of Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreements to operate Buy-Back Program activities, 

the Buy-Back Program gains the benefit of tribal participation by entering into cooperative agreements and more informal arrangements with tribes to undertake land 

consolidation tasks. 

The Department and the Administration are strong supporters of the ISDEAA. 

However, any proposed changes to the Buy-Back Program must take into account 

the progress we have made in the Program and the potential delays and additional 

implementation costs that a new process may cause. 

In comparison to other Federal programs, the Land Buy-Back Program’s limited, 

10-year timeframe and its 15 percent cap on implementation costs (for outreach, 

land research, valuation, and acquisition activities) are unique. The parameters in 

the Settlement necessitate relatively intense, short-term activity at each location to 

maximize the number of the 150 locations and the some 245,000 individual land 

owners that may participate in the Program. If the 1SDEAA were extended to the 

Buy Back Program, the 10-year deadline established by the Settlement would likely 

need to be extended to provide the Program, and tribes, the additional time necessary: 

• to consult with tribes to determine an appropriate method for allocating implementation costs under ISDEAA agreements; 

• to provide training and conduct security clearances for tribal staff at each location that seeks to accept responsibility for the Program’s acquisition phase 

through an ISDEAA agreement; 

• for tribes that choose to use a site-specific appraisal approach rather than a 

mass appraisal approach; and 

• for the Buy-Back Program to transition to any amendment to ensure that it 

has proper staff and intra-agency agreements in place to implement the law. 

Even if every tribe chose to utilize ISDEAA agreements, the Program would 

need to maintain staff to provide final approval of appraisals and land transfers. 

Moreover, acquisition and payment processing time may vary from tribe to tribe 

under ISDEAA agreements. Currently, the Department is able to print and mail 

2,000 offers per day and pay owners promptly that sell their fractional interests 

(since December 2013, the Program has paid owners an average total of $667,000 

per day). The process integrates land title and trust fund systems of record, which 

enables landowners to receive their offer packets shortly after appraisal completion. 

Payments for accepted offers are deposited directly into their Individual Indian 

Money accounts typically within an average of 5 business days of receiving a complete, accepted offer package. 

In addition, and as indicated above, additional funding could be necessary, should 

the ISDEAA be extended to the Buy Back Program, for: 

• tribal and Interior administrative costs associated with any extension of the 

current 10 year implementation deadline; 

• tribes to prepare proposals and negotiate with Program representatives, including resources to provide technical assistance to tribes for the development 

of agreements; 

• implementation of changes to processes that have already been established; 

• appraisal work, which may increase (the Buy-Back Program uses primarily 

mass appraisal methods whereas most tribes in ISDEAA programs use sitespecific appraisals); and 

• full contract support costs, which would need to be provided under ISDEAA 

agreements (the Buy-Back Program currently provides up to 15 percent in indirect costs through cooperative agreements to minimize implementation expenses consistent with the Settlement). 

13 

Existing Buy-Back Program costs and functions for tribes not interested in utilizing ISDEAA agreements would remain the same; consequently, the Buy-Back 

Program would continue to need funds to maintain capacity for the Department to 

implement the program. 

If the ISDEAA was extended to the Buy-Back Program without additional fund- ing, it is likely that the $285 million administrative cost cap would be reached well 

before the fund available to purchase land is exhausted. Thus, any increase in costs 

associated with an ISDEAA extension would need to be authorized and appropriated 

so that such costs do not diminish the funds available to return lands to tribes. 

Question 3. The committee has received testimony that CGI Federal, the same 

Federal contractor that developed the healthcare.gov Web site, is also involved in 

the Buy-Back program and may even have an ownership interest in the TAAMS 

system. What involvement does CGI Federal have with the program? 

Answer. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of CGI Federal. CGI 

Federal was the lead contractor on the Web site for the Affordable Care Act. The 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) awarded CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. the 

contract for ADP Systems Development Services and Automated Information System Design and Integration Services. The result of that contract is the Trust Asset 

Accounting Management System (TAAMS). In 2013, BIA requested that a new 

TAAMS module be developed specifically to manage Land Buy-Back land purchases. 

BIA also approved a Task Order for CGI to manage the Print/Mail/Scan/Review portion of the acquisition process. 

Question 4. The committee is aware that some tribes have expressed a desire for 

the Buy-Back funds to be able to be invested or otherwise earn value to maximize 

the number of interests that can be purchased. Does the Department agree with this 

concept? If so, can it provide the committee with a proposal on how this could be 

accomplished? 

Answer. The Department has no authority to invest the Trust Land Consolidation 

Fund (Fund). The Cobell Settlement sets forth the precise purpose and use of the 

Fund. It states, in pertinent part, as follows: 

‘‘The Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be used solely for the purposes of (1) 

Acquiring fractional interests in trust or restricted lands; (2) Implementing the 

Land Consolidation Program; and (3) Paying the costs related to the work of the 

Secretarial Commission on Trust Reform, including costs of consultants to the Commission and audits recommended by the Commission. An amount up to a total of 

no more than fifteen percent (15 percent) of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund will 

be used for purposes 2 and 3.’’ (Cobell Settlement Agreement at § F(2).) 

Under the terms of the Settlement, any unexpended funds revert to the Department of the Treasury if not expended within 10 years. The Department has no authority to utilize, disperse, retain, or invest any portion of the Fund in a manner 

inconsistent with the mandates of the Settlement, as ratified by the U.S. Congress 

through the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. 

If legislation were enacted either authorizing investment of or providing for the 

payment of interest on the Fund, such authority should be granted to either the Department or to the U.S. Treasury. All interest income earned from investment of the 

Fund should inure to benefit of the Fund. 

Question 5. What amendments can be made to the Cobell Settlement Agreement 

or other applicable Federal law to improve the success of the Buy-Back Program for 

Indian tribes? 

Answer. We are pleased with the success of the Program thus far. Thus far, we 

have successfully concluded transactions worth almost $146 million, restoring the 

equivalent of nearly 280,000 acres of land to tribal governments. 

From the lessons we have learned thus far there is one area for improvement. The 

Settlement established the $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund for the purchase of fractional interests. Despite the large size of the Fund, it is unlikely to contain sufficient capital to purchase all fractional interests across Indian country. 

In terms of amendments to the Cobell Settlement Agreement or other applicable 

Federal law, Congress may want to consider amendments that would clarify a 

State’s ability to share appraisal information with the Buy Back Program. We have 

observed this to be a hurdle in some States and clarifying language could address 

such situations. 

Questions Submitted by Ranking Member Colleen Hanabusa 

Question 1. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 states that the Secretary has 10 

years from the date of the final settlement to spend the $1.9 billion of the Trust 

14 

Land Consolidation Fund. By my calculation, we are already about 4 years in and 

the Department has just recently sent purchase offers to three tribes. At this rate, 

do you expect the 10-year window to be long enough to enable you to spend all of 

the $1.9 billion? 

Answer. The Department is committed to implementing the Program in the most 

efficient and cost-effective manner. The Settlement was confirmed by the Claims 

Resolution Act of 2010 and approved with finality on November 24, 2012, after appeals were exhausted through the U.S. Supreme Court. The 10-year period occurs 

from November 24, 2012 (the date of Final Approval of the Settlement) to November 

24, 2022. 

During the first year of the Program, the Department focused on joint planning 

with tribes, cooperative agreements, staffing, and designing and laying out the 

strategy, methods, and key systems for this 10-year Program. Tribal involvement, 

transparency, flexibility, timely decisionmaking, and ongoing communication 

throughout the life of the Program are critical to its success. 

In less than 1 year we have successfully concluded transactions worth almost $138 million, restoring the equivalent of nearly 277,000 acres of land to tribal governments (these transactions relate to eight different locations). Deputy Secretary 

of the Interior Michael Connor announced a schedule through 2015 for the continued implementation of the Program that identified locations representing more than 

half of all the fractional interests and unique owners across Indian Country. The 

Department is planning to announce additional locations before the end of the calendar year. 

One approach that the Department is using to expend the Fund in a timely manner is the use of mass appraisal techniques. The breadth, scale, limited funding, and 

bounded life span of the Program necessitate the use of mass appraisal methods 

where appropriate. The Department intends to implement the Program fairly and 

equitably, moving quickly to reach as much of Indian Country as possible during 

this 10-year period. Mass appraisal is an efficient way to quickly determine fair 

market value for a significant number of fractionated tracts. By using the mass appraisal method where applicable, the Program can maximize the number of owners 

that can receive payments for the interests they decide to sell, and therefore the 

interests that will be immediately restored to the tribes. 

Question 2. When can members of the Trust Administration Class expect their 

payments? Why have there been delays in issuing them? 

Answer. The Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit ended in a settlement agreement approved 

by Congress and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the 

case was filed. 

Under the settlement agreement, the Federal Government paid approximately $1.5 billion into a settlement fund in a private bank. The Plaintiffs administer that 

account under the supervision of the district court and have responsibility for distributing the funds. The government does not control the distribution of the settlement funds. 

Pursuant to the Cobell Settlement Agreement as approved by Congress and 

signed by the President on December 8, 2010 (Settlement Agreement), specific notice and process provisions must be met before payments can be made to the Trust 

Administration Class (TAC), also identified as Stage 2 payments. Plaintiffs are required to identify all the TAC members because that number will affect the calculation of the settlement payments. See Settlement Agreement, at sec. E.4.a (‘‘No Stage 

2 [TAC] payments shall be made until all Stage 2 Class Members have been identified in accordance with this Agreement and their respective pro rata interests have 

been calculated.’’). 

Plaintiffs hired (and the court approved) the Claims Administrator, Garden City 

Group (GCG), to make the distribution. In late 2012, the district court approved the 

first round of settlement payments to the Historical Accounting Class (HAC), also 

identified as Stage 1 payments. In the Stage 1 payments, each class member was 

paid $1,000. On January 23, 2014, the district court granted a motion by Plaintiffs 

to add almost 13,000 members to the HAC. 

Plaintiffs are now preparing to make the Stage 2 settlement payments to members of the TAC. This part of the settlement calculation is more complicated because 

the dollar amount paid to class members will vary according to how much money 

was deposited in his or her Individual Indian Money (IIM) account over time. 

Trust Administration Class members who had no IIM account, or who had no 

money deposited to an IIM account, will receive a minimum payment. That minimum amount is based on: (1) the total number of class members; and (2) the 

amount of money left in the settlement fund after paying the Stage 1 settlement 

payments (plus the expenses of administering the settlement). Plaintiffs cannot perVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\COMPLETE\03AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87534.TXT MARK
15 

form these calculations for Stage 2 until they can identify the final number of class 

members and reasonably estimate the amount of money available in the settlement 

account after expenses. 

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, a Special Master was appointed to make 

determinations regarding the eligibility of individuals to participate as members of 

the TAC. Before the TAC can be finalized, the Special Master must resolve the appeals that ‘‘self-identifying’’ putative TAC members made after they were denied inclusion into the class by GCG. The Special Master is still considering those appeals, 

and we have no timeframe for when the appeals will be resolved. Once the universe 

of TAC members has been identified, the calculation of TAC settlement payments 

can be completed. 

Question 3. A private firm, the Garden City Group, is arranging to send out payments to the Trust Administration Class, but ultimately, executing this duty is a 

Federal responsibility. Who in the Department is responsible for overseeing the 

work of the Garden City Group and how are they addressing class member concerns 

that expected payment dates keep getting pushed back? 

Answer. Plaintiffs, not the Federal Government, have the responsibility to disburse payments to the members of the Cobell classes pursuant to the Settlement 

Agreement and the legislation authorizing its implementation. Payments to individual class members are not considered trust unless and until they are transferred 

to the Department pursuant to the settlement provisions noted below. They are 

aided in that task by the appointed Claims Administrator, Garden City Group 

(GCG). The government’s limited involvement includes supplying the ‘‘best and most 

current’’ contact information for each beneficiary class member and indicating if the 

class member is a minor, non-compos mentis, an individual under legal disability, 

in need of assistance, or whose whereabouts is unknown, as well as receiving and 

holding proceeds for individuals with IIM accounts who are identified in DOI’s data 

as ‘‘whereabouts unknown.’’ See, e.g., Settlement Agreement at E.1.g (‘‘Defendants’ 

Limited Role. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, Defendants shall 

have no role in, nor be held responsible or liable in any way for, the Accounting/ 

Trust Administration Fund, the holding or investment of the monies in the Qualifying Bank or the distribution of such monies.’’). 

With the settlement funds in a private bank, the settlement distribution is entirely a private task, with the government merely providing data (i.e., contact information, whereabouts unknown information, etc.) to support Plaintiffs’ (and GCG’s) 

effort. Although the Federal Government is not in charge of the Cobell settlement 

distributions, the Department of the Interior does have program responsibility for 

another part of the Cobell settlement: use of the $1.9 billion Congress appropriated 

to buy back highly sub-divided allotments on a voluntary basis from individual land 

owners. In contrast to the monetary payments to class members, this ‘‘Land Buy 

Back’’ portion is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. 

The Department of the Interior is not charged (by the Settlement Agreement or 

otherwise) with overseeing the work of the Claims Administrator GCG. With that 

in mind, individuals within the Department (specifically, officials within the Office 

of the Special Trustee and Office of the Solicitor) are working collaboratively with 

GCG for the delivery of the contact information and to help resolve any questions 

or concerns that may arise about the data. Supervision and oversight of the Claims 

Administrator, however, remains with the district court. 

Question 4. Does the Department have enough personnel to ensure the timely implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program? 

Answer. The Program currently employs 56 full-time employees (Program Office 

10, Bureau of Indian Affairs 14, Office of Minerals Evaluation 13, and Office of Appraisal Services 19). In addition, tribes may hire approximately up to 29 tribal staff 

through funding available under cooperative agreements. The Program is also utilizing contractors, particularly for acquisition (print/mail/scan) and appraisal services. 

Tribes will also continue to have an active role in implementing the Program, particularly with respect to outreach activities. It is critical that the Buy-Back Program 

and tribal leaders work together to ensure that landowners are made aware of the 

opportunity to sell their interests for the benefit of both the landowner and tribal 

communities. The Department hopes to enter into cooperative agreements with as 

many interested tribes as possible to take advantage of tribes’ ability to minimize 

administrative costs and to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the 

Buy-Back Program. The Department currently has formal or informal agreements 

in place with 12 tribes: Coeur d’Alene Tribe of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Confederated 

16 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Fort Belknap Indian Community of the 

Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Gila 

River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Makah Indian Tribe 

of the Makah Indian Reservation, Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe of North and South Dakota, and the Crow Tribe. 

Question 5. I have heard that the Department is focusing on only 40 tribes to conduct the Land Buy-Back Program even though there are 150 tribes with 

fractionated land shares. Are those claims accurate? If so, why are you focusing on 

only 40 tribes? 

Answer. It is not accurate that we are only focusing on the top 40 tribes. It is 

true that approximately 90 percent of the purchasable fractional interests are located within 40 of the 150 locations with purchasable fractional interests. As a result, as a practical matter, the Department must focus a great deal of its initial 

efforts among these highly fractionated locations. While the Program will be implemented at locations that hold the highest amount of purchasable fractional interests, the Department will also pursue implementation activities with tribes at 

locations that represent the approximately 110 locations with the remaining 10 percent of the fractionated land. Efforts are already underway at several less 

fractionated locations including the Makah, Coeur d’Alene, Squaxin Island, 

Swinomish, Prairie Band, Quapaw, and Lummi Reservations. 

Question 6. Many tribes already implement their own fractionated shares buyback 

programs with their own funds. These tribes are eligible for the Cobell Settlement’s 

Land Buy-Back program, but they have had to wait in a long line to access settlement funds. Meanwhile, they have been continuing to implement their own programs with their own funds. Is the Department open to using the Trust Land 

Consolidation Fund for reimbursing tribes for fractionated land purchases from 

November 2012, the time the Cobell Settlement was officially final, to the time 

Interior is able to make them an offer? 

Answer. The Department is open to exploring every possible avenue to efficient, 

timely, and cost effective purchases of fractionated interests consistent with the requirements of the Settlement, the Indian Land Consolidation Act, the Claims 

Resolution Act of 2010, and all other applicable laws. 

We have also made tribes not immediately slated for implementation in the next 

year aware of the opportunities and tasks that they can undergo right now to help 

prepare for the smooth transition when the Program moves to their location. 

Question 7. Some tribes have expressed concerns with the Department’s one-sizefits-all approach to implementing the Land Buy-Back Program. How do you respond 

to that criticism and can you understand the need for the Department to take a 

more tailored approach? 

Answer. The Department recognizes the uniqueness of each location and tribal 

government, will continue to consult with tribes individually, and will continue to 

evaluate tribal proposals individually before initiating Buy-Back Program activities 

on the respective reservations. The Program’s Tribal Relations Advisors are responsible for working closely with each tribe to understand its concerns and unique 

goals. Each cooperative agreement between the Program and individual tribes is 

unique in time, scope, and responsibilities based on the expressed interests of the 

tribe. 

Cooperative agreements present an opportunity for tribes and the Program to 

move forward together by providing funding for tribes to perform certain tasks, such 

as outreach to the landowners. While much can be accomplished through these 

agreements, cooperative agreement funding should be viewed as a short-term 

resource to achieve the much larger and more valuable goal of land consolidation. 

Accordingly, the Program must award agreements with an eye toward efficiency 

without engaging in protracted cooperative agreement negotiations that detract 

from the objective of providing individual landowners with offers of fair market 

value for their fractionated interests in trust or restricted land. 

A Scope of Work Checklist has been developed in response to tribal feedback requesting details about the work involved and templates to streamline the process 

for entering into agreements. While this checklist outlines baseline parameters and 

tasks, it does not preclude tribes from proposing other pertinent tasks or activities 

given the unique circumstances of their locations. 

The Program has worked diligently to facilitate and expand tribal involvement in 

land consolidation efforts, in part by hiring staff dedicated to those goals. It also 

strives for a cooperative agreement process that is as streamlined as possible, while 

17 

still meeting all Federal and Departmental regulations and requirements associated 

with the awarding of any financial assistance. These requirements, such as completing the mandatory SF–424 Application for Federal Financial Assistance forms 

and complying with the applicable procurement regulations and cost principles, 

apply to all financial assistance awards, including grants, unless statutorily exempted. 

Question 8. Chairman Berrey claims that the Department refused to work with 

his tribe to purchase fractionated shares in a Superfund site. Is this true? If so, why 

is this? Shouldn’t the tribe be able to use Settlement funds to consolidate shares 

on any of its lands it sees fit? 

Answer. The Department recently announced a list of locations where it would implement the program and the Quapaw Tribe is included on that list. The Department has in fact already sent offers to Quapaw that are outside the Superfund site 

and is working to finalize those purchases. Although fractionated shares within the 

Superfund site present complex legal and practical challenges, the Department is 

working with the Department of Justice on whether and how the Department can 

purchase such parcels. The Department continues to keep the tribe apprised of its 

efforts. 

Question 9. Our tribal witnesses today universally support Indian Self-Determination Act contracting over other cooperative agreements. If Congress worked on a bill 

to permit tribes to enter into ISDEAA contracts to administer the Buy-Back Program, would the Department support it? 

Answer. Please see page 1, answer 2 in response to the Chairman’s similar question. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Rau ́ l Grijalva 

Question 1. I understand there are five tribes that have successfully entered into 

Cooperative Agreements with the Department already, can you share with us how 

has the Department concluded the Agreements with those five tribes? 

Answer. The Department has entered into agreements with 10 tribes (Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of 

Montana, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota, and Crow Tribe). The Department 

also has a Memorandum of Agreement with Gila River Indian Community of the 

Gila River Indian Reservation, and an informal working agreement with Makah 

Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation. The Department expects to finalize 

additional agreements in the near future. 

In order to negotiate an agreement, the Program’s Tribal Relations Advisors, in 

coordination with field staff, work closely with tribal leadership to define a scope 

of work that will enable the tribe to accomplish its goals for the Program. The time 

it can take to reach each agreement is dependent on each tribe’s procedures, which 

can vary dramatically in terms of needed approvals. The tribal point of contact and 

the Tribal Relations Advisors are in regular contact via email and in-person meetings throughout the process. 

Question 2. Let me turn your attention away from the land Buy-Back Program 

and to the initial aim of the Cobell Settlement, can you give me the latest update 

and progress on the Historical Trust Administration established to compensate Individual Indian Money (IIM) Account Holders? 

Answer. The Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit ended in a settlement agreement approved 

by Congress and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the 

case was filed. Under the settlement agreement, the Federal Government paid approximately $1.5 billion into a settlement fund in a private bank. The Plaintiffs 

administer that account under the supervision of the district court and have responsibility for distributing the funds. The government does not control the distribution 

of the settlement funds. 

Pursuant to the Cobell Settlement Agreement as approved by Congress and 

signed by the President on December 8, 2010 (Settlement Agreement), specific notice and process provisions must be met before payments can be made to the Trust 

Administration Class (TAC), also identified as Stage 2 payments. Plaintiffs are required to identify all the TAC members because that number will affect the calculation of the settlement payments. See Settlement Agreement, at sec. E.4.a (‘‘No Stage 

18 

2 [TAC] payments shall be made until all Stage 2 Class Members have been identified in accordance with this Agreement and their respective pro rata interests have 

been calculated.’’). 

Plaintiffs hired (and the court approved) the Claims Administrator, Garden City 

Group (GCG), to make the distribution. In late 2012, the district court approved the 

first round of settlement payments to the Historical Accounting Class (HAC), also 

identified as Stage 1 payments. In the Stage 1 payments, each class member was 

paid $1,000. On January 23, 2014, the district court granted a motion by Plaintiffs 

to add almost 13,000 members to the HAC. 

Plaintiffs are now preparing to make the Stage 2 settlement payments to members of the TAC. This part of the settlement calculation is more complicated because 

the dollar amount paid to class members will vary according to how much money 

was deposited in his or her Individual Indian Money (IIM) account over time. 

Trust Administration Class members who had no IIM account, or who had no 

money deposited to an IIM account, will receive a minimum payment. That minimum amount is based on: (1) the total number of class members; and (2) the 

amount of money left in the settlement fund after paying the Stage 1 settlement 

payments (plus the expenses of administering the settlement). Plaintiffs cannot perform these calculations for Stage 2 until they can identify the final number of class 

members and reasonably estimate the amount of money available in the settlement 

account after expenses. 

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, a Special Master was appointed to make 

determinations regarding the eligibility of individuals to participate as members of 

the TAC. Before the TAC can be finalized, the Special Master must resolve the appeals that ‘‘self-identifying’’ putative TAC members made after they were denied inclusion into the class by GCG. The Special Master is still considering those appeals, 

and we have no timeframe for when the appeals will be resolved. Once the universe 

of TAC members has been identified, the calculation of TAC settlement payments 

can be completed. 

Question 3. I am also interested in the investment on the education of Indian 

Youth side of the Cobell Settlement. I believe that $60 million of $1.9 billion dollars 

Trust Land Consolidation was contributed to Indian Education Scholarship (aiming 

at improving access to higher education for Indian youth), can you give us an update 

and progress of this Scholarship Program? And how many Indian youth have benefited from this fund already? 

Answer. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement the Department of the 

Interior will contribute up to $60 million to the Scholarship Fund. Contributions to 

the Scholarship Fund are based upon the formula outlined in the Settlement setting 

aside a certain amount of funding based on the value of the fractionated interest 

sold. As the offer sets for the individual reservations receiving offers are completed, 

scholarship funds are transferred to the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund 

(Holding Fund). At the end of each quarter, the funds are transferred from the 

Holding Fund to the American Indian College Fund. The first payment was made 

at the end of March 2014 and the second at the end of June 2014. To date, the Department has transferred more than $3.4 million to the American Indian College 

Fund. Another transfer of approximately $1 million will occur in the near future. 

The American Indian College Fund, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, administers the Scholarship Fund and provides students with the resources to succeed in 

tribal colleges and technical and vocational certifications as well as traditional undergraduate and graduate programs. A five-member Board of Trustees is responsible for the oversight and supervision of the College Fund’s administration of the 

Scholarship Fund and for developing and adopting a charter outlining its role and 

responsibilities. The American Indian College Fund is responsible for establishing 

the eligibility criteria for the award of scholarships as well as for managing and administering the Scholarship Fund. Twenty percent of the Fund’s portfolio will be directed to support graduate students through the American Indian Graduate Center 

in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Benefits to Indian students as a result of these scholarships are anticipated in the near future. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. A pleasure. 

Mr. Finley. 

19 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O. FINLEY, CHAIRMAN, 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION 

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Young. I 

hope that you can extend appreciation to Chairman Hastings for 

the wonderful introduction that he bestowed upon me this afternoon. 

My name is Michael Finley. I serve as Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Northeast Washington 

State. I also serve as first Vice President to the National Congress 

of American Indians, and Chairman to the Intertribal Monitoring 

Association of Indian Trust Funds. I will be testifying today as 

Chairman of the Colville Tribes. 

We are located, as I stated, in Northeast Washington State. We 

encompass about 1.4 million acres, bigger than the State of 

Delaware. The fractionation issues are large on Colville, and we 

are on the list to be treated here with the Buy-Back Program, 

hopefully shortly. 

I want to go back to 4 years ago, Mr. Chairman, if I may, and 

deviate a little bit from my testimony. Beginning 4 years ago, I 

worked closely with Chairman Hastings and other members of the 

party to try to rectify some of the problems that we have seen in 

the Cobell Settlement as it was making its way through Congress. 

And I think, Mr. Young, you were part of those discussions at certain points. 

There was a greater concern by tribal leaders about certain 

things that we have seen, based on our own experiences, that we 

thought meaningful and easy changes could be made to that settlement as it was making its way through. And, much to our surprise, 

I think the level of negativity, and the level of reluctancy, not only 

by the plaintiffs, but by the administration, I found it quite appalling, to be quite honest. There were simple changes that we were 

asking for. And by merely us asking questions, it seemed like we 

were being ridiculed for just wanting to ask questions about the 

Cobell Settlement. 

I think many at the time just wanted to rush through it, they 

didn’t want us to ask questions. I think one of the hearings that 

was had here in this very room where I testified, I think there was 

pushback on that, for us to even have a hearing. And all that the 

tribal leaders wanted was to be heard at the time, because we had 

our own constituents who were directly impacted by this who wanted to know how it was going to affect them, and what it meant. 

And, to be quite honest, I didn’t have all the answers, as a tribal 

leader, as their elected official. So when I went to ask questions 

and to articulate some of the concerns that were coming directly 

from my membership, it was met with some negative feedback. 

And, you know, I have to share. You know, for a time after that, 

I was cut off the White House mailing list, you know, for mass 

emails. And I had to actually go to our lobbyist to get them for a 

period of time. And at some point down the road I was added 

again. That may or may not be directly correlated, but I know, 

serving as Chairman to the ITMA board for a number of years, we 

were asking questions. 

We didn’t want to kill the settlement, we were merely asking 

whether or not changes could be made. They had received funding 

20 

for 10 years, straight up until that time. And when we started asking those hard questions, all of a sudden that funding went away. 

And that was funding that came from the Federal Government. 

Again, it may or may not be correlated to us asking questions, but 

judging the animosity that we were feeling at the time, I venture 

to say that they are, or they were. So, I just wanted to share that, 

as some of the experiences that I received after asking questions 

on why changes should be made to it before it had been approved 

through Congress. 

One of the major ones that I think we were able to get through 

Doc Hastings and even on the Senate side was to merely allow 

tribes to contract through 638, similar to a lot of the things that 

we do today. You know, it is enacted legislation that allows tribes 

to do a number of things, through contract in 638, but that was denied. Instead, now we are stuck with this cooperative agreement 

model that doesn’t altogether work to our benefit. 

We want to have complete control over it. We want to allow the money, the $1.9 billion, to earn interest. Today, right now, the $1.9 

billion is not earning interest. If it was done through 638 contracting, the tribes who receive their allocation, they could invest 

that money. But there is no interest being earned right now. And 

I don’t know if it occurred to the people who drafted up the legislation then, or the people pushing it, whether it be on the plaintiff 

side or what have you, but it seems to me that is one thing that 

they would have wanted to include, and I am sure they have a good 

reason why. 

Another concern that my tribal members continue to have today, 

Mr. Chairman, is where is the second payment. They were promised it at the end of last year. Many of them were counting on it 

for Christmas, and it didn’t come through. I know, as an elected 

official, if I promise my members they are going to get a payment 

before Christmas, that didn’t come through, I wouldn’t be sitting 

here in front of you today. I can tell you that. So, I think some answers need to be given to the tribes and their individual allottees 

on that point there. 

I know there are delays, and I am familiar with why there are 

delays. Some say it is because the attorneys fees haven’t been finalized yet. But some say that is not exactly the truth. But I think 

if this committee had any interest, they might want to look into 

that to find out the reasons why. 

So the interest itself, if we can get some remedy to that, Mr. 

Chairman, I think that would go a long way to allow tribes to extend that dollar a lot further than what it is going to go today, because the $25.6 that is going to be allocated to Colville to deal with 

the fractionation issue is just a drop in the bucket to the complete 

problem that we have there. 

And we, as a tribe, historically have been very aggressive with 

our own buy-back purchase program, and we have done it quite 

successfully. We are second to only one tribe in the Pacific Northwest in total trust lands. And that is second to the Warm Springs 

in Oregon. 

The other part that I alluded to a little bit ago is we want to 

have complete control over the Buy-Back Program. We want to be 

a part of the outreach, the land research, the evaluation, the acquiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\COMPLETE\03AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87534.TXT MARK
21 

sition parts of it. And especially the acquisition, because we are 

dealing with our tribal members. We know our tribal members better than anybody. 

Mr. YOUNG. Michael, you are about out of time. 

Mr. FINLEY. OK. I will wrap it up there. 

With that, I just want to thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. This is something I am very passionate 

about, and I have a lot more I want to share, but a lot of it is in 

my written testimony. So I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL O. FINLEY, CHAIRMAN, 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

Good afternoon Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of 

the subcommittee. My name is Michael Finley and I am the Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (‘‘Colville Tribes’’ or the ‘‘CCT’’). I also 

serve as the First Vice President of the National Congress of American Indians and 

the President of the Intertribal Monitoring Association on Indian Trust. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today in my capacity as Chairman of the Colville Tribes 

on the implementation of the Cobell settlement and the Department of the Interior’s 

Land Buy-Back program. 

My testimony will focus on how the Cobell settlement came to be approved and 

how many of the issues that tribes have raised about the Buy-Back program could 

have been resolved had the changes that tribal leaders requested been incorporated 

into the settlement 4 years ago. I also have three specific recommendations for the 

Department and the subcommittee to consider to improve the Buy-Back program. 

First, I would like to provide some background on my people and our land. Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation is, as the name states, a confederation of 12 aboriginal tribes and bands 

from all across the plateau region of the Northwest and extending into Canada. The 

present-day Colville Reservation encompasses approximately 1.4 million acres and 

is located in north-central Washington State. The Colville Tribes has nearly 9,500 

enrolled members, making it one of the largest Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest. About half of the CCT’s members live on or near the Colville Reservation, 

which has more than 800,000 acres of forest land. 

INDIAN TRIBES AND ORGANIZATIONS WANTED THE COBELL SETTLEMENT CHANGED

When the Cobell settlement was still being considered by Congress 4 years ago, 

Indian tribes and tribal organizations requested certain changes to the settlement. 

These included changes to the land consolidation portion of the settlement and the 

Buy-Back program. The Indian Land Consolidation Act allows tribes a role in administering the Buy-Back program but it explicitly prohibits Indian tribes from contracting or compacting the program under the authorities in the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (‘‘ISDEAA’’). 

In an April 27, 2010, letter to tribal leaders, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

Ranking Member John Barrasso sought input on five changes to the Cobell settlement. The changes included capping pre-settlement date attorneys’ fees, expenses, 

and costs at $50 million; limiting any ‘‘incentive awards’’ under the settlement to 

named plaintiffs to actual, unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses incurred by that 

plaintiff; having the court-appoint a Special Master to select the bank for holding 

the settlement funds; and setting aside $50 million from the $1.412 billion settlement monies as a reserve fund to address specific instances where the Special Master determined the formula payment is insufficient or unfair. The final change 

Senator Barrasso proposed in his letter would have required the Department to consult with Indian tribes in planning, designing, and setting the priorities for the land 

consolidation portion of the settlement and to allow Indian tribes to implement the 

Buy-Back program under the ISDEAA. 

The Administration and the Cobell class representatives vigorously objected to the 

changes. It seemed that they both wanted to create the perception that asking questions about the settlement—let alone suggesting changes—meant you were in favor 

of ‘‘killing’’ the settlement. To the contrary, the tribal leaders and organizations that 

supported changing the settlement did so out of a desire to ensure fairness and adeVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\COMPLETE\03AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87534.TXT MARK
22 

quate protections for their constituents, Indian beneficiaries generally, and tribal 

governments. 

The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (‘‘ATNI’’), the Great Plains Tribal 

Chairman’s Association, and the National Congress of Americans Indians all passed 

resolutions or otherwise expressed support for the proposition that changes to the 

Cobell settlement must be made. All three of these entities referenced contracting 

or compacting the Buy-Back program under the ISDEAA in the changes they endorsed. Based on this tribal support, then-Ranking Member Doc Hastings proposed 

an amendment that would have incorporated the changes adopted in the ATNI resolution and Senator Barrasso’s April 27 letter. The House majority at the time did 

not allow that amendment to be considered on the House Floor. 

Congress ultimately approved the settlement as part of the Claims Resolution Act 

of 2010 and the foregoing is now a historical footnote. As enacted into law, $1.9 billion was appropriated for the Buy-Back program. It is ironic, however, that many 

of the issues and concerns that tribes have expressed about the Buy-Back program 

over the past year could have been addressed had the parties to the settlement incorporated the changes that tribes requested. 

For example, nearly every tribe is concerned about the prospect of unspent funds 

appropriated for the Buy-Back program reverting back to the U.S. Treasury after 

10 years. Many tribes are similarly concerned about the level of involvement they 

will be allowed to have in implementing the program. These would not be issues 

today had the Cobell settlement been amended 4 years ago to allow tribes to contract or compact the program under the ISDEAA. 

THE COLVILLE TRIBES’ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BUY-BACK PROGRAM

In the Buy-Back program’s updated implementation plan, the CCT is listed as 

number 15 out of the 40 tribes identified for initial deployment of the program. The 

plan states that the CCT will have approximately $25.6 million available to purchase fractionated interests. For decades, the CCT has carried out its own land consolidation program using tribal funds and fully expects to spend all of this money. 

In 2013 alone, the CCT purchased $6.5 million of fractionated interests from tribal 

members using proceeds from its $193 million trust mismanagement settlement 

with the United States. Demand on the part of tribal members to sell their land 

to the CCT has always been high and we expect this to continue to be the case going 

forward. 

The CCT is currently verifying the accuracy of the trust land ownership records 

on the Colville Reservation. On most reservations, these records are not accurate. 

The CCT wants to ensure that any offers to purchase Colville tribal members’ 

fractionated interests will accurately reflect the members’ landholdings. The CCT is 

also attempting to obtain certain information so that it can ascertain which tracts 

of land it will prioritize for purchase. The CCT has expressed its intent to the Department to enter into a cooperative agreement to administer as much of the BuyBack program as possible. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the work we have done so far, we offer the following recommendations 

to improve the Buy-Back program: 

(1) Allow Tribes to Invest their Allocated Buy-Back Funds 

For the 10-year duration of the program, the $1.9 billion appropriated for the 

Buy-Back program will sit in a non-interest bearing account and gain no value over 

time. For whatever reason, it did not occur to the architects of the settlement that 

the Department should be able to invest the $1.9 billion and retain the earnings 

for the program. The ISDEAA allows funds for contracted or compacted programs 

to be transferred directly to tribes, at which point the tribes can invest the funds 

themselves. Again, had the ISDEAA change been incorporated, this would not be 

an issue. 

It only makes sense to maximize the amount of funds available to purchase 

fractionated interests by allowing this large appropriation to earn value over time 

to increase the number of interests that can be purchased. The 10-year clock has 

already begun ticking for the $1.9 billion principal to be spent. Every fiscal year 

that goes by without this money being invested represents money and opportunity 

lost. 

It would require congressional action for the Department to be able to invest the 

Buy-Back appropriation and retain the earnings. Tribes, however, can invest their 

allocated purchase ceiling funds if the funds could be transferred directly to them 

and not held by the Department. The details of such an arrangement could be 

23 

included in an escrow agreement or as part of a cooperative agreement. The CCT 

intends to propose this as part of its cooperative agreement as a means of maximizing the funds available to consolidate its land base. 

(2) Make Land Data More Readily Available at No-Cost to Tribes 

The BIA’s system for recording title to Indian trust lands is called the Trust Asset 

and Accounting Management System, or ‘‘TAAMS,’’ as it is commonly referred. The 

TAAMS system was developed by CGI Federal, the same contractor that developed 

the healthcare.gov website that received widespread media attention last fall. 

The CCT understands that through some arrangement, CGI Federal retains an 

ownership interest in the TAAMS system. While a small number of tribes like the 

CCT have access to the TAAMS system, the system is not designed to make extrapolation of data user friendly. CGI Federal has been separately marketing itself to 

Indian tribes as an entity that can obtain data from the TAAMS system. The CCT 

will likely have to pay CGI Federal more than $20,000 to obtain the information 

and data that it needs to implement the Buy-Back program. 

This is an absurd result and should never have been allowed to happen in the 

first instance. We encourage the subcommittee to explore how the arrangement between the Department and CGI Federal began and what, if anything, can be done 

right now to ensure that tribes do not have to pay CGI Federal or other third parties for data that should be readily available. 

(3) Allow Tribes to Perform All Land Acquisition Functions 

The Buy-Back program is divided into four phases: outreach, land research, valuation, and acquisition. It is imperative that those tribes with the capacity be allowed 

to perform all phases, but especially the acquisition phase. Tribes are in the best 

position to consummate land sales and issue deeds to close out the transactions. 

Tribal control over the acquisition phase will also allow tribes to exchange tribal 

trust land for fractionated interests. If individuals are reluctant to sell because they 

want to maintain an ownership interest in Indian land, this type of an exchange 

would allow for those individuals’ interests to be consolidated while giving them an 

interest in tribal land in return. The key to these activities is tribal control over 

the acquisition function. 

I appreciate the subcommittee’s consideration of this testimony. We look forward 

to working with the subcommittee and the Department on these and other issues. 

At this time I would be happy to answer any questions the members of the subcommittee may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO MICHAEL O. FINLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

Question Submitted by Chairman Don Young 

Question 1. In your statement you mentioned that there were consequences for 

those who advocated for changes to the Cobell Settlement Agreement. When the Settlement Agreement was still pending 4 years ago, what were tribal leaders saying 

about efforts to change it? 

Answer. Many tribal leaders were privately supportive of efforts to change the settlement but for various reasons were not in a position to make their views publicly 

known. At the time, the Administration was coordinating a number of meetings on 

other initiatives of interest to Indian country. Some tribal leaders expressed concern 

that publicly advocating for changes to the Cobell settlement might lead to them not 

being invited to participate in these unrelated initiatives. 

Question Submitted by Ranking Member Colleen Hanabusa 

Question 1. You say that you would like to administer the Buy-Back Program 

through self-determination contracts. What is the difference between self-determination contracts and cooperative agreements through which you may now administer 

the Buy-Back Program and why would you prefer one over the other? 

Answer. Self-determination contracts explicitly allow funds for contracted programs to be transferred to tribes at the tribes’ request. This essentially means that 

tribes have custody and control of the funds and could incorporate the funds into 

the tribes’ own investment plans or otherwise earn value over time with the money. 

As ratified by Congress, the Cobell settlement did not contain any authority for 

the Department of the Interior to invest the appropriation for the Buy-Back program or to retain the proceeds of such an investment. Currently, this $1.9 billion 

24 

appropriation is in a non-interest bearing account and will be for the life of the program. We prefer the self-determination contract model because it would allow tribes 

to maximize the number of interests by investing their allocated Buy-Back program 

funds. 

Question Submitted by Rep. Rau ́ l Grijalva 

Question 1. In your statement you propose a few recommendations for the BuyBack program and one of them is to allow tribes to perform all land acquisition 

functions. I am interested to know how could we be assured that this one-sided process would be done in [a] transparent manner? And I am also curious to know too, 

how do you define ‘‘tribes with the capacity’’ to be allowed to perform land acquisition since every tribe is so different? 

Answer. The Colville Tribes is interested in having control of the acquisition function because we want to be able to generate, or re-generate, as the case may be, 

offer packets to landowners when we conduct outreach meetings to prospective sellers. Often, when our tribal members receive official government correspondence in 

the mail they set it aside until someone more knowledgeable can explain what the 

letter is and how it may affect them. We anticipate significant interest in our outreach presentations and want to be able to give landowners the appropriate paperwork onsite if they lost or misplaced their original offer packet. 

Ensuring transparency in the acquisition process would, for practical purposes, be 

self-executing since our control of the function would result in the dissemination of 

more information in a more convenient manner. 

Carrying out the acquisition function involves having access to the TAAMS system and knowledge of BIA realty operations. One measure of tribal capacity to carry 

out this function could be whether the tribe has contracted either BIA realty functions or Land Title Records Offices. Both of these functions require the tribe in 

question to have significant capacity. 

Mr. YOUNG. I hope you take the time to talk to Doc Hastings and 

myself. Because I was unaware, and shows how ignorant I can be, 

which is quite evident, I didn’t know that fund was in a non-interest bearing account, and that was done by the administration. I 

don’t understand that. This is a settlement. You ought to be making money off of it. So we may take care of that. 

Mr. John Berrey. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BERREY, CHAIRMAN, QUAPAW TRIBE 

OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BERREY. Thank you very much for inviting me here today, 

Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Congressman Daines and 

Congressman Grijalva for participating, and also Markwayne 

Mullin, who is my congressman. I think he will be here shortly. 

I echo a lot of the same concerns as my friend, Mike Finley. The 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, which I am the chairman, has been involved in tribal land purchases for nearly 10 years. I am in my 

14th year as chairman of the tribe. We are a 638 tribe, which we 

compact or contract all the functions of the Department of the 

Interior, except for the IIM account management. 

Several of my tribal members opted out of the Cobell litigation, 

because they didn’t believe it was the proper case for their claims 

of years and years of heavy mining done on our land that has left 

some of the land in bad condition. 

But the reason I am here today is I really, we believe in the spirit of this settlement and this Buy-Back Program. We believe in the 

tribe’s ability to make economies out of land use when they become 

the single owner and single decisionmaker that allows us to make 

money. And that is the business that I am in. I am into making 

25 

our land useful and our opportunities, so I can provide services to 

my tribal members. That is what I do every day. And we buy land 

every day. 

But our frustration is we don’t seem to be able to get through 

the door of being part of this Buy-Back Program. We were the first 

tribe to provide a cooperative agreement to the Department of the 

Interior, and we still today don’t have any kind of agreement or 

way forward to be part of this program. I have a number of tribal 

members that are ready, willing, and able to sell their land. They 

want to sell it. I have given them offers. I have the appraisals, I 

have the surveys. I have all the work done. We are not even asking 

for the administrative costs. We are just asking for the money to 

pay for the land within the spirit of the settlement. 

We have a very sophisticated realty department. We know all of 

our members. We know where all the land is. And I am in constant 

communication with all my tribal members. And they ask me every 

day when are they going to get to sell their land, because they need 

the money. It is like the members at Colville. You know, not all my 

tribal members have a lot of cash, and they see this as an opportunity to better their families, and maybe even buy some food or 

electricity. 

So, it just dumbfounds us that we are prepared, we provided the 

names, I mean we provided everything to the Department, but yet, 

to this day, we are not part of the program. We think it is a great 

program, it is going to allow for economies for the tribe, which will 

benefit my tribal members. It is going to reduce the burden of the 

management of the Department of the Interior on all these 

fractionated interests, which, hopefully, will allow the Department 

of the Interior to have more resources to do the things that they 

are there to do, and they can work with us further and have the 

opportunity with less fractional problems. And we just see this as 

a win-win for everyone. 

Our fear is we are 4 years into this thing. We are knocking on 

the door every day, saying, ‘‘We want to be part of this.’’ We have 

done all the legwork, we have done the outreach. We have the willing sellers, but they are not interested in working with the Quapaw 

Tribe, and we don’t know why. 

We have, in our part of Oklahoma, we have the most land base, 

the most fractionated tracks, and we are on the list, even though 

we may be low down on the list, we are still on that list. And we 

are very frustrated. And we think we can help the Department 

with some success. If they would just come to the table and meet 

with me, we could start selling property and purchasing property 

today, and we could move them closer to an era of less fractional 

problems of the Quapaw. 

So, with that, I would just leave myself. We are trying to become 

the largest bison herd in Northeast Oklahoma. We are about to 

spend nearly a million dollars on registered Black Angus cattle, so 

we could be the largest beef producer in Northeast Oklahoma. But 

we need more land. And the way that we want to partially get 

there is through this Buy-Back Program, and we would really like 

to be part of it, so we could build economies, and I could provide 

better benefits for my tribe. 

26 

So, if you have any questions for me at any time, I will be happy 

to answer them, and I appreciate the opportunity, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berrey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BERREY, CHAIRMAN, QUAPAW

TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA (O-GAH-PAH) 

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa, my own Congressman Markwayne Mullin, and honorable members of the subcommittee on Indian 

and Alaska Native Affairs. 

My name is John Berrey and I am the Chairman of the Quapaw Tribe of 

Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah, hereafter Tribe), located in far northeast Oklahoma. 

I very much appreciate the invitation to appear before you today to discuss the 

Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (the Buy-Back Program), the $1.9 billion 

initiative to help re-consolidate fractionated Indian lands across the country. 

As you know, this initiative was included in the Cobell v. Salazar settlement in 

ratified by Congress in 2010. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing: it is timely and aptly named because 

I believe there are real opportunities being missed and, as we all know, this program is probably our last, best shot to re-consolidate Indian lands and make them 

economically viable again. 

MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF THE BUY-BACK PROGRAM

The major objectives of the Buy-Back Program are to: 

1. Allow interested tribal members to receive payments for voluntarily selling 

their land at fair market value; 

2. Reduce the number of fractionated interests in trust or restricted lands; 

3. Structure acquisitions to maximize the number of tracts in which tribes gain 

a controlling ownership interest to unlock land for beneficial use or conservation, as determined by the applicable tribe; and 

4. Deploy tribal resources such as realty and land management staff and officials 

to minimize the burdens to the Department of the Interior (the Department). 

RE-CONSOLIDATING ITS LAND BASE A TOP PRIORITY OF THE QUAPAW TRIBE

An issue of major importance to the tribe and its members is the consolidation 

in the tribe of the many fractionated interests of our Indian lands. Over the past 

decade, the tribe has developed and implemented one of the most sophisticated and 

successful Indian land consolidation programs in the country. 

Since the Buy-Back Program was enacted, the tribe has been working with department officials in its pursuit of a formal relationship from which to use Buy-Back 

Program funds to reduce fractionation and restore the tribe’s land base. We are 

somewhat frustrated, because, despite the success we have in the area of Indian 

land consolidation, to date we have not been allowed to participate in the program. 

In early 2013, the tribe submitted to the Department a proposed Cooperative 

Agreement outlining how the tribe’s participation in the Buy-Back Program would 

benefit our tribal members and also demonstrate that significant land consolidation 

can occur if carried out properly. Various officials at the Department were appreciative for the tribe’s submissions, and even commented that they had aided the Department in preparing additional templates for the program. 

After several meetings and conversations with Department staff regarding the 

evolving contours and requirements of this historic land consolidation program, in 

March 2013, the tribe submitted a revised Cooperative Agreement reflecting our understanding of what factors and elements the Department would view favorably, 

leading hopefully to our involvement in the Buy-Back Program. 

The Department’s response was not favorable. A Buy-Back Program official acknowledged the tribe’s strong desire to participate in the Program, but went on to 

note that 

‘‘if the tribe is still interested in pursuing a cooperative agreement, I encourage the tribe to submit a cooperative agreement application focusing on 

non-Superfund fractionated tracts and in light of the cooperative agreement 

guidelines published since March 2013.’’ 

The Department’s position is not only disappointing; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Tar Creek site and the fact that large tracts of fractionated 

27 

land within that site are not contaminated and are, in fact, being used for agricultural and other purposes. It has also caused us to question the overall openness and 

fairness of the program, as it is currently being structured. 

PAST EFFORTS AND TRIBAL ACQUISITION OF INDIVIDUAL PARCELS

The only rationale the tribe has been provided for being excluded from the Buy 

Back Program is that the Department does not want it to buy fractionated land 

within the Tar Creek Superfund site (the Superfund site). 

We do not know the basis for this position and, in fact, have tried without success 

to get the Department to fully articulate its position. But it does not appear to be 

the true reason. 

As explained below, the fact is the Department routinely approves gift conveyances from restricted owner to restricted owner within the Superfund site, and the 

Department also regularly approves probate conveyances to the tribe from the estates of tribal members relative to restricted and trust parcels within the Superfund 

site. 

For many years, the tribe has sought to use the Indian Land Consolidation Act 

to acquire title to fractional interests in Indian land both within and outside the 

boundaries of the Superfund site. The tribe has been successful in acquiring various 

parcels outside this site, but there currently are dozens of applications by tribal 

members who have already expressed their keen interest in selling their parcels at 

the site to the tribe. 

In its proposed Cooperative Agreement, the tribe has offered to deploy its realty 

and other land-related offices and staff, made an extremely cost-effective proposal 

to use Buy-Back Program funds to consolidate fractional interests, and has offered 

to acquire these interests without asking for administrative funding authorized by 

Congress in 2010. 

There is no provision in law, or for that matter in the Department’s updated implementation program, that would prevent these transactions from being consummated. 

The tribe obtains conveyances of fractional interests in Indian land within the site 

through the probating of the estates of tribal members. As you know, the probate 

process is slow and does not keep pace with land fractionation. Further, and despite 

suggestions from the Department that the tribe look to non-Superfund site parcels 

in order to participate in the Buy-Back Program, the reality is that tribal members 

regularly obtain fractional interests in trust and restricted land within the Superfund site. This belies the Department’s position that these in-site parcels cannot be 

consolidated in the tribe. 

Last, the tribe has met repeatedly with Bureau of Indian Affairs officials and expressed the tribe’s willingness to explore the possibility of mutually acceptable language or other approaches to ensure the Federal Government incurs no new liability 

by virtue of these conveyances for purposes of land consolidation. These efforts have 

also failed. 

I am not here to indict anyone, and I really have no information other than what 

I have mentioned about why the Department seems disinterested in working with 

the Quapaw Tribe through a cooperative agreement. I do want to point out that realty matters can be very difficult for an Indian tribe to administer if the tribe has 

not had extensive experience in the area. 

Tribes such as the Quapaw Tribe, with highly successful land consolidation programs, can serve as models to other tribes. The Department should not let inclusion 

in the Buy-Back Program be guided by illegitimate reasons. The program should be 

open, and tribes, particularly those with a demonstrated record of accomplishments 

in the land consolidation area, should be allowed to participate. 

In summary, in our experience, the Department seems to have a private agenda 

concerning what tribes will be permitted to participate in the Buy-Back Program. 

In our case, the Department is, for whatever reason, showing a lack of interest in 

working with a tribe that has been extremely successful in this area, and that could 

serve as a model for efficiently consolidating fractional interests in Indian land. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE THE BUY-BACK PROGRAM SUCCEEDS

As of January 2014, the Department has agreed to Cooperative Agreements with 

five (5) Indian tribes: the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Makah Indian Reservation, and the 

Rosebud Sioux Reservation. 

I am happy for these tribes and am hopeful the Buy-Back Program is a success 

for them. At the same time, there are hundreds of tribes suffering from a 

28 

fractionated land base and more must be done immediately to ensure this once-ina-lifetime program works for the benefit of Indian people. 

As you know, time is of the essence because authority for the Trust Land Consolidation Fund expires on December 8, 2020—10 years after the date of final settlement of the Claims Resolution Act. 

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has approved a resolution 

urging changes be made to the land consolidation program and, most recently, has 

issued a letter to Interior Secretary Jewell urging the Buy-Back Program be opened 

up to additional tribes in an expeditious manner. 

I have included copies of NCAI’s resolution and NCAI President Cladoosby’s letter 

to Secretary Jewell to this prepared statement. 

As the Department moves forward in implementing the Buy-Back Program, the 

Congress should re-consider two key issues in order to achieve the maximum value 

for the $1.9 billion it has authorized: 

1. The use of contracts and compacts under the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act to carry out the Program. These contracts are widely used 

in Indian Country, tribes have a thorough familiarity with them, and Buy-Back 

funding can be funneled to tribal communities through them. 

As the subcommittee knows, the use of ISDEAA contracts and compacts was hotly 

debated by the Department and the Congress, with the department insisting they 

not be included in the final version of the Cobell settlement. 

During post-enactment consultation sessions, tribes again raised the idea of using 

ISDEAA contracts and this suggestion was similarly rejected. 

2. Congress should authorize the Department to earn interest on the $1.9 billion 

fund. Currently, the Department is prohibited from seeking interest on this money 

and, in the process, is losing a valuable opportunity to augment the funding level 

contained in the original settlement. 

3. Congress should encourage the Department to re-evaluate its criteria for offering cooperative agreements to tribes, and should ensure that decisions are not being 

made arbitrarily. 

The program should be open, especially to tribes such as ours that have made viable, cost-effective proposals, and that have a proven track record of actually accomplishing the goals of Indian land consolidation. In this regard, I encourage Congress 

to continue its oversight of the Department’s administration of this important program. 

CONCLUSION

Given the opportunity, my tribe will work with the department to acquire and 

consolidate fractional interests owned by tribal members. 

In the process, we can demonstrate to like-minded tribes that the goals of the 

Buy-Back Program can be accomplished if the department and tribes work collaboratively and effectively. 

Thank you for your consideration of my testimony. I am happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

Attachments 

NCAI Resolution #PDX–11–041 (2011) 

NCAI Letter to Secretary Jewell (December 18, 2013) 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Thank you very much. Questions will 

come when everybody testifies. 

Mr. Burke. 

33 

STATEMENT OF GARY BURKE, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED 

TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

Mr. BURKE. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking Member 

Hanabusa, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Gary 

Burke. I am the Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation. Joining me today is Bill Tovey, whose 

department has taken lead on the participation of the Land BuyBack Program. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony 

on implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program under the 

Cobell Settlement, which we view as a historic opportunity to restore CTUIR ownership of reservation lands, as intended in our 

treaty of 1855. 

The Land Buy-Back Program has determined that the Umatilla 

Reservation is the 28th most fractionated reservation in the country. Our reservation is on the list because of the Umatilla Allotment Act, passed in 1885, which resulted in the sale of a third of 

our reservation to non-Indian settlers, the allotment of the remainder of the reservation to tribal members, the loss of 50 percent of 

the allotted lands to non-Indian ownership, due to probate sale, tax 

foreclosures. Fifty percent of the allotment still is in trust or owned 

by Indians who are not enrolled in our tribe. 

By the 1970s my tribe, a minority of land owners on the reservation that our treaty has established for our exclusive use. For the 

past three decades, the CTUIR has prioritized and dedicated considerable resources to the restoration of our reservation land base. 

We have allocated a portion of our tribal revenues to re-acquire 

reservation lands, enacted an inheritance code to prevent the loss 

of trust lands upon the death of an Indian land owner, establish 

a land trust, tribal land program to manage the re-acquisitions of 

the reservation lands, compacted the realty and appraisal functions 

of the BIA. 

The experience of our tribal land program can be measured by 

the success. We have acquired 42,000 acres in the 740 land transactions at a cost of some $23 million. Most importantly, our tribal 

staff know our reservation lands and land owners, which will be essential to the success of the Land Buy-Back Program on our reservation. As described in more detail in our written testimony, we 

urge Land Buy-Back Program to address these problem areas. 

Land buy-back funds should be made available to reimburse 

tribes for the purchase of fractionated trust allotment under tribal 

probate or inheritance codes. The Land Buy-Back Program needs 

to provide adequate contract support, cost, and tribal grants for the 

implementation of the program. The Land Buy-Back Program 

needs to provide information to affected tribes on what has worked 

and what has not in the implementation of the program on the 

other reservations. 

The Department of the Interior needs to commit to personnel, 

specifically appraisers, reviewers, to ensure the timely implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program. We believe that tribal involvement is critical in the success of the Land Buy-Back Program. We 

have developed a statement of work which would involve our tribe 

in all phases of the program. We believe that our staff, given the 

right experience and knowledge, can effectively implement the 

Land Buy-Back Program on our reservation. 

34 

CTUIR is prepared and more than willing to spend additional 

land buy-back funds if we were to become available within the 10- 

year period. The Land Buy-Back Program is a small, but important 

step by the United States to honor our treaty, and to reverse the 

failed allotment policy of the 18th–19th century. 

Consistent with the current Federal land policy, Indian policy, 

the successful implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program can 

improve travel, self-determination, self-sufficiency, by reducing 

fractionated ownership of reservation lands, and thereby increasing 

the ability of tribes to make beneficial use of the lands. 

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspectives on the Land Buy-Back Program. We look forward to working 

with you to ensure the success of the Land Buy-Back Program on 

our reservation. 

With that said, I want to thank everyone for listening to the testimony. And, most of all, Elouise Cobell, on her intent of what she 

set out to do. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY BURKE, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE

UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

Good Afternoon Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of 

the subcommittee, my name is Gary Burke and I am Chairman of the Board of 

Trustees, the governing body of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program under the Cobell settlement. My tribe 

views the Land Buy-Back Program as an historic opportunity to restore CTUIR 

ownership of Reservation lands as intended in our Treaty of 1855. 

Pursuant to Article I of our Treaty, the CTUIR ceded 6.4 million acres of its aboriginal lands in exchange for the Umatilla Indian Reservation, which was set aside 

for the ‘‘exclusive use’’ for the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla tribes. However, 

due to failed Federal policies of the past, we lost over two-thirds of our Reservation 

land base. The CTUIR has long prioritized the restoration of the Reservation land 

base set aside in our Treaty, and the Land Buy-Back Program will play a critical 

role in accomplishing that important goal. 

The loss of our Reservation land base occurred shortly after our Treaty was ratified in 1859. In 1882, Congress severed 640 acres from the western end of the Reservation to facilitate the growth of the city of Pendleton. In 1885, 2 years before the 

General Allotment Act became law, Congress passed the Umatilla Allotment Act 

which allotted and diminished the Reservation established under our Treaty. The 

1885 law diminished the Reservation by opening up some 90,000 acres of Reservation land for sale to settlers. The allotment of our Reservation under the 1885 law 

resulted in the loss of approximately one-half of tribal lands within the diminished 

Reservation to non-Indian ownership due to probate, sale and tax foreclosure. When 

we celebrated the 100th anniversary of our Treaty in 1955, the Reservation established by our Treaty had been largely lost to non-Indian ownership. Of the original 

Treaty Reservation of 250,000 acres, we had lost one-third of our Reservation due 

to diminishment and another third to non-Indian acquisition of allotments issued 

to tribal members. 

The allotment of our Reservation has also resulted in fractionated ownership of 

the individual allotments issued to tribal members. According to the Updated Implementation Plan for the Land Buy-Back Program, the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

is the 28th most fractionated Reservation, with 1,015 fractionated allotments totaling 66,945 acres which contain 18,828 purchasable fractional interests. Fractionated 

ownership of these lands makes use and management of these lands difficult, and 

in many cases impossible, because of the large number of landowners and the difficulty in contacting and securing the consent of those landowners for a particular 

use. We have also learned that a large percentage of the owners of these 

fractionated interests are Indians that are not enrolled in our tribe. For example, 

when we renegotiated a pipeline right-of-way (ROW) that traversed some 13 miles 

through our Reservation in the late 1990s, approximately two-thirds of the owners 

of the allotments burdened by the ROW were Indians enrolled in tribes other than 

the CTUIR. 

35 

For the past three decades, the CTUIR has dedicated considerable resources to 

the restoration of our Reservation land base. We have enacted laws, dedicated tribal 

revenues and developed tribal programs to reacquire Reservation lands within our 

Treaty Reservation boundary and to prevent the loss of tribal trust lands upon the 

death of Indian landowners. 

The Land Buy-Back Program provides a means to restore tribal ownership of 

fractionated interests in trust allotments. Our tribe has prioritized 400 fractionated 

allotments, out of a total of approximately 1,300 allotments on the Reservation, for 

acquisition under the Land Buy-Back Program. These prioritized allotments are 

heavily fractionated, have a large percentage of ownership by Indians enrolled in 

tribes outside of our own, or otherwise have important cultural, natural resource or 

economic and community development significance. 

The CTUIR is well prepared to participate in the implementation of the Land 

Buy-Back Program on our Reservation. The experience and expertise of our Tribal 

Land Program, which had led the tribal effort to restore our Reservation land base 

over the past 30 years, is critical to the success of each phase of the Land Buy-Back 

Program. The success of our Tribal Land Program can be quantified: we have acquired 42,000 acres in 740 land transactions at a cost of some $23 million. The 

CTUIR has also compacted the realty and appraisal functions from the BIA. Our 

Tribal GIS staff have extensively mapped our Reservation, including Reservation allotments. Most importantly, our tribal staff know and have dealt with our Reservation lands and their landowners, which will be essential to the success of the Land 

Buy-Back Program on our Reservation. 

The CTUIR is anxious to have the Land Buy-Back Program implemented on our 

Reservation. We have been working diligently for more than a year to develop a 

plan for tribal participation in the outreach, land research, land valuation and acquisition phases of the Land Buy-Back Program. For the past 6 months, we have 

been negotiating for a Cooperative Agreement with the Land Buy-Back Program 

that defines and funds the work we would perform to implement the Program. 

While we are frustrated at how slow the process has been, we believe we are getting 

close to finalizing our Cooperative Agreement. 

Based on our experience, we urge the Land Buy-Back Program to address these 

problem areas: 

1. We believe that Land Buy-Back funds should be made available to reimburse 

tribes for the purchase of fractionated trust allotments under tribal probate or inheritance codes. Under our CTUIR Inheritance Code, we have the right to prevent 

the transfer of trust lands by will or intestacy to a non-member of the CTUIR upon 

the payment of fair market value. We have requested that the Land Buy-Back Program reimburse our acquisitions under this Code dating back to the Federal court 

approval of the Cobell settlement in November 2012. To date, the Land Buy-Back 

Program has not agreed to this request. The CTUIR believes our request should be 

granted because these probate acquisitions achieve the objectives of the Land BuyBack Program by acquiring fractionated interest in trust lands and transferring 

ownership to the tribe at fair market value as determined by the Department of Interior. 

2. The Land Buy-Back Program needs to ensure that it provides adequate contract support costs as a component of the grants to tribes for the implementation 

of the Program. As the subcommittee is aware, this has been an issue that the U.S. 

Supreme Court has addressed in the Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 

2181 (2012), holding that the United States had a contractual obligation to pay full 

contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. To date, the Land Buy-Back Program has taken 

the position that it can only pay contract support costs in the amount of 15 percent 

of the tribal grant under a Cooperative Agreement. We have also been informed that 

we will not receive any contract support funding for grant funds that are used to 

pay subcontractors or to acquire equipment. While we are mindful of, and support, 

the Cobell settlement 15 percent cap on administrative costs under the Land BuyBack Program, the Land Buy-Back Program position on paying tribal administrative 

costs to implement the Land Buy-Back Program is too restrictive. We have proposed, and to date, the Land Buy-Back Program has not accepted, that the tribe receive administrative costs in the amount of 15 percent of its total grant. We believe 

our proposal would provide tribes sufficient contract support costs funding to carry 

out Land Buy-Back Program functions and be consistent with the 15 percent administrative expenses cap contained in the Cobell settlement. 

3. The Land Buy-Back Program needs to provide more information to affected 

tribes on the roll-out of the Program in Indian Country. It would be helpful to us 

to learn about what has worked, what has underperformed and what has failed in 

the implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program on other reservations. It’s equalVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\COMPLETE\03AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87534.TXT MARK
36 

ly important that we receive information about the rate of acceptance of offers to 

purchase made to Indian landowners under the Land Buy-Back Program. The 

CTUIR, and other participating tribes have a shared interest with the Land BuyBack Program in the success of the Program. The CTUIR wants to learn from, and 

benefit by, the successes (and the failures) of other tribes participating in the Land 

Buy-Back Program. 

4. The Department of Interior needs to commit the necessary personnel to ensure 

the timely implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program. We have particular concerns regarding the time associated with the review and approval of our appraisals 

of the fractionated trust allotments that we have prioritized for purchase under the 

Land Buy-Back Program. These reviews will be conducted by the Office of Appraisal 

Services (OAS). The CTUIR has proposed to conduct appraisals and have offer letters sent out on the 400 allotments we have prioritized for purchase in three waves: 

the first and second wave will involve 150 allotments and the third wave will be 

of 100 allotments. The timing for our outreach efforts, the appraisal of the allotments and the schedule for mailing out offers are dependent upon a timely review 

and approval of the appraisals by OAS. 

Since Congressional approval of the Cobell settlement in the Claims Resolution 

Act in 2010, the CTUIR has focused on the Land Buy-Back Program to consolidate 

tribal ownership of heavily fractionated allotments and to restore CTUIR ownership 

to those allotments. Our staff have worked diligently with Interior Department and 

Land Buy-Back Program officials to prepare for our participation in the implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program on our Reservation. Once we finalize our 

Cooperative Agreement and the associated Scope of Work, we are prepared to begin 

outreach to Indian landowners, to appraise the prioritized allotments and to assist 

in the acquisition of these fractionated interests. With increased tribal ownership 

of these allotments, and the associated decrease in fractionated ownership, we will 

be better able to use our Reservation land base to meet the needs of our tribal members. The United States will also benefit under the Land Buy-Back Program due to 

the reduction in costs associated with the probate of these fractionated interests and 

the management of IIM accounts that hold the income generated on these trust allotments. 

Most importantly, the Land Buy-Back Program is a small but important step by 

the United States to honor our Treaty and to reverse the failed allotment policy of 

the 19th century. Consistent with current Federal Indian policy, the successful implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program can improve tribal self-determination 

and self-sufficiency by reducing fractionated ownership of Reservation lands and 

thereby increasing the ability of tribes to make beneficial use of those lands. 

This completes my testimony. Once again, on behalf of the CTUIR, I appreciate 

the opportunity to provide our perspectives on the Land Buy-Back Program. We look 

forward to working with the subcommittee and the Land Buy-Back Program to ensure its success on our Reservation. 

37 

38 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY RANKING MEMBER COLLEEN HANABUSA

TO CHAIRMAN GARY BURKE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN

RESERVATION (CTUIR) 

Question 1. What are the day-to-day effects of having such a fractionated reservation? 

Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, the 1885 Umatilla Allotment Act not only 

diminished our Reservation, it allotted what remained of the Reservation to individual tribal members, leaving very little land in tribal trust status. Over threequarters of the trust lands on our Reservation are allotted trust lands, and the large 

majority of those allotments are heavily fractionated. Again, as pointed out in my 

testimony, our Reservation has 1,015 fractionated allotments (out of a total of 1,300 

allotments on the Reservation) totaling 66,945 acres which contain 18,828 fractional 

interests (i.e., approximately 18 fractional interests per allotment). 

The fractionalized ownership of trust allotments on our Reservation affects the 

day-to-day management and use of these allotted lands for the tribe, the Indian 

landowners and private businesses doing business in Indian Country. The challenges and costs caused by this fractionalized ownership are too numerous to count, 

but set forth below is a representative sample: 

(a) Land Use. Our Reservation has 1,015 allotments that are fractionated with 

over 23 percent having greater than 20 landowners. These allotments include 

productive farm, timber and grazing lands that, in many cases, cannot be used 

because of the sheer number of landowners and the cost, difficulty and time 

associated with securing landowner consent. 

(b) Probate. The CTUIR has adopted an Inheritance Code under the Indian Land 

Consolidation Act that permits (in most cases) the tribe to prevent the transfer 

of allotted trust lands to non-Indians and non-CTUIR members upon the payment of fair market value to the heirs. Upon the death of an Indian landowner, the probate process has become very expensive and time consuming 

due to the large number of fractionated interests in trust allotments. This expense is not only borne by the CTUIR but also by the Department of Interior’s 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). 

Complicating this matter further is the recent decision by OHA to close its office within the Pacific Northwest BIA Regional Office in Portland and to have 

CTUIR probates handled by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the 

Sacramento office. The decision to close the Portland OHA office was done 

without any tribal consultation. There is a clear need for an OHA office in 

Portland because of the Inheritance Codes that either Congress has enacted 

or the Department of Interior has approved for the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes, which includes the CTUIR. Each of these tribal codes are similar and 

the tribes and tribal members would benefit by having an ALJ located in 

Portland who became familiar with our codes so that they could be implemented with some consistency. 

(c) Farm Leasing. The CTUIR has compacted the BIA realty functions and we 

manage the leases of allotted farmlands. Annually, there are renewals of close 

to 100 plus farm leases and over 120 USDA/FSA contracts. Over 4,000 lease 

and contract payments are distributed to the fractionated land owners. The 

workload has increased for the tribal realty staff, as well as the BIA who approves the leases and the Office of Special Trustee who oversees the Individual 

Indian Money Accounts. 

(d) Salmon and Floodplain Restoration. The CTUIR has been actively engaged in 

restoring salmon runs in the Umatilla River and its tributaries to protect the 

exercise of our Treaty reserved fishing rights. Key to this effort has been restoring floodplains and riparian habitat that salmon and other aquatic species 

require, which has required the consent of allotment landowners for access 

and to perform this important work. Again, securing this consent has been 

made considerably more expensive and time consuming due to the large number of landowners and the difficulty of locating many of those landowners. 

(e) Management of Timber and Grazing Lands. The CTUIR efforts to manage and 

protect timber and grazing lands on our Reservation are also hampered by the 

fractionalized ownership of trust allotments. We have had timber thinning operations delayed, or stopped altogether, due to the inability to make contact 

with and get the consent of the landowners involved. Similar challenges are 

confronted by our efforts to manage and protect grazing lands. 

(f) Housing. The development of mutual help homes on trust allotments has been 

a particular source of friction due to fractionalized ownership. These mutual 

39 

help homes were constructed by our Housing Authority pursuant to a lease between the landowners and the Housing Authority. However, once the lease expires, the mutual help homeowner needs authorization from the allotment 

landowners for continued occupancy of the home. Securing this landowner consent has been difficult, and in many cases the consent has not been received, 

because the landowner(s) who signed the lease when the mutual home was 

built has since died and the number of landowners has increased dramatically 

when the lease expires. We continue to deal with mutual help homeowners who 

have paid for their homes that are on allotments where the homeowner has 

been unable to secure the consent of the numerous landowners. 

(g) Utility Rights-of-Way. The cost, delays and work associated with fractionalized 

ownership of allotments is not only borne by the CTUIR and its members, it 

is also borne by companies that do business in Indian Country—such as utilities. On our Reservation, we have rights-of-way for electrical, water, sewer, 

natural gas and cable utilities that have fixed terms. These utilities incur considerable costs and dedicate considerable personnel and time to locating landowners and securing their consent for right-of-way renewals. 

Question 2. Your testimony notes that one of the issues you face is trying to consolidate fractionated shares—many of which are owned by non-tribal members. Are 

there special considerations the Department must factor in to ensure you are being 

serviced effectively through the Land Buy-Back Program? 

Answer. As mentioned in my testimony, the CTUIR has prioritized 400 

fractionated allotments and 259 mineral only interests for purchase under the Land 

Buy-Back Program. One of the important criteria we used in selecting these 400 

fractionated allotments was the percentage of non-CTUIR member owners of 

fractionated interests in the allotment. Therefore, it will be critical that Land BuyBack funds be used to purchase fractionated interests in these 400 prioritized allotments to restore CTUIR ownership to Reservation lands reserved for our ‘‘exclusive 

use’’ in our Treaty of 1855. 

Finally, I appreciate Chairman Young’s comments at the close of the hearing. We 

have also been concerned that the Land Buy-Back Program has been managed by 

Department of Interior officials without any direct involvement of tribal representatives. We also agree with the Chairman’s statement that the sooner our tribal lands 

are consolidated the better it will be for tribes. I thank Ranking Member Hanabusa 

for your further interest in my testimony and the work of the subcommittee to improve the implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program. 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, thank you for your precise statement. For the 

next two guys, 5 minutes right on the button, so thank you. 

Mark, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF MARK L. AZURE, PRESIDENT, FORT BELKNAP 

TRIBAL COUNCIL, FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY 

Mr. AZURE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members, 

and guests. Congressman Daines, I want to thank you for allowing 

me to be here to testify on behalf of the 7,000 enrolled members 

at Fort Belknap from the two tribes, the Assiniboine and the Gros 

Ventre. 

I was going to read the testimony, but I won’t, because you are 

keeping me at 5 minutes, but I want to echo what Chairman 

Burke, Chairman Berrey and Chairman Finley are talking about, 

and that at Fort Belknap, you know, we feel that we haven’t been 

part of this process. And we have made several attempts to do that, 

to send in scope of work, cooperative agreements. And waiting, and 

waiting, and waiting, and not hearing back from the folks that are 

on the other end, you pick up the phone and it is a dead dial tone 

there. So we want to be part of that. 

And I want to echo that the outreach should come from tribes, 

not somebody out here in DC. I know my people, they know me. 

40 

I think they are going to trust me more than they will trust anybody else involved in this, whether it is the BIA or the Department 

of the Interior, those staff members. 

We have the same concern, that the overall settlement money is 

not in an account gaining interest, and that we can’t seem to get 

our hands on even some administrative money to help us implement this thing and get it rolling. And that the outreach that is 

there now, it is a 1-800 number at a regional office somewhere. 

When our tribal members call it, they might not receive anything 

or hear a voice message, and so they are not going to try back, and 

they are going to come frustrated to me, and I am going to have 

to try to explain to them that there is nothing I can do for you 

right now, other than come out here to DC, when the opportunity 

arises, and give testimony, and hope that changes how this plan is 

set in place. 

I guess, other than that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remaining time, and just hope that this committee hears everybody on 

this panel loud and clear, that the way this thing is going now, it 

is not working. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Azure follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK L. AZURE, PRESIDENT, FORT BELKNAP TRIBAL

COUNCIL, FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman, committee members and guests, and thank you for 

providing the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of Fort Belknap an opportunity 

to express our concerns about the implementation of the Land Buy-back Program 

enabled by the Cobell Settlement. My name is Mark Azure and I am the President 

of the Fort Belknap Indian Community Council, the governing body of the 

Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in 

Montana. I am a U.S. Army Veteran and a member of the Assiniboine Tribe of Fort 

Belknap. The Fort Belknap Indian Community consists of over 7,000 enrolled members of the two tribes, for whom I am pleased to offer these comments. 

The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was allotted through a separate act of Congress in 1921. Since that time, many original allottees died without wills, creating 

a significant fractionated interest problem. In the 1920s there were 1,189 individual 

allotments issued covering over 650,000 acres on Fort Belknap. As early as the 

1950s the Tribal Council utilized various sources of funding to purchase land from 

heirs of the original allotments. Our fathers and grandfathers on the Tribal Council 

saw the detrimental effect that fractionated interests was having on the ability to 

use lands. 

In recent years the source of income to purchase lands has dried up. According 

to the Department of Interior, in 2012, the Fort Belknap Reservation had 3,007 

fractionated tracts encompassing 570,883 acres with 55,329 separate interests that 

potentially could be purchased if sellers were willing. 

At Fort Belknap, we have contracted a Tribal Land Department from the BIA to 

help administer tribal lands under a P.L. 93–638 contract for over 35 years. To satisfy our tribal goals, the tribal government contributes $180,000 annually under its 

aid to tribal government contract. This action shows our deep commitment to tribal 

land acquisition. We also have experience with buying allotted lands from enrolled 

members. In fact, we have within the last few years spent $778,000 on land acquisitions in an attempt to purchase back land for our tribes, and since the inception 

of our Land Purchase program in the 1970s, over 150,000 acres of allotted lands 

have been purchased and added to tribal inventories. Many other acres have been 

exchanged and consolidated. While these numbers may seem large, unfortunately, 

our lack of resources has held back our overall plan to purchase fractionated interests from willing sellers and solve the large remaining fractionated interest problem 

that has plagued economic development. 

Our staff has attended national meetings of the Large Land-based Tribes for decades, emphasizing the need for tribes to address fractionated interests. We have patiently waited ‘‘our turn’’ while other tribes were successful in receiving funds to 

purchase fractionated interests. 

41 

1 Updated Implementation, Land Buy-back Program for Tribal Nations, Summary, Page 2 of 

32 (December, 2012). 

In 2012, we were excited to see the potential for our Tribal Land Purchase plans 

to receive funding through the Cobell Settlement. We looked at the December 18, 

2012, Land Buyback Plan of the Department of Interior, and were ready to get moving. We attended numerous ‘‘listening’’ conferences, and were frustrated that our 

many suggestions, made by tribal leaders and staff with decades of experience and 

focus on enabling tribal-run programs, seemed to receive little consideration. 

When no specific contracts were even proposed by March, 2013, we submitted a 

draft contract in April, 2013, to get the process moving. Five months to identify and 

enable existing tribal programs to begin purchasing lands seemed to be long enough. 

We were then and continue to be very concerned that Congress set a 10 year limit 

on the availability of these funds, beginning in November, 2012. 

Unfortunately, we received no feedback on our written proposal and agreement 

of April, 2013. Instead, DOI staff proposed a standardized ‘‘boilerplate’’ agreement 

to all tribes in June, 2013. While somewhat discouraged about no response to our 

written proposal, we submitted a new agreement based on the ‘‘boilerplate’’ agreement in late June, 2013. We incorporated most of the assurances and procedural 

steps the DOI had sought in their draft, but upgraded the agreement to address 

needs at Fort Belknap. 

Again, we received no feedback on our June, 2013 proposal. Instead, DOI, almost 

a year after funds became available for purchasing lands, in the fall, 2013, published a process whereby tribes could contract with DOI, but advised that they 

wanted detailed proposals, and then they alone would respond and prepare their 

‘‘boilerplate’’ agreement, with no changes to be expected from their prepared draft. 

We have reluctantly assented to this process and submitted a letter of interest 

and a resolution to the DOI. It is now 18 months into the 120 month timeframe 

whereby these funds will be available. We know people are interested in selling interests. We have applications for land sales for millions through our existing 

processes. Regrettably, we are no closer to purchasing these lands than when we 

started. 

Two of the goals in the 2012 DOI Buy-back Plan were to ‘‘maximize tribal participation in the program’’ and to ‘‘establish and maintain clear communication 

throughout its operation’’.1 These were appropriate goals. We embraced these goals, 

and spent significant tribal resources in attending meetings and drafting agreements to implement these goals. We operated under good faith that DOI meant to 

implement these goals. It is now nearly 18 months after those goals were drafted, 

and we are discouraged that neither of these goals are progressing. 

As far as we know, the Billings Regional Office of the BIA does not have a clear 

plan to implement the Land Buy-back Program for Regional Tribes. Our attempts 

to initiate a specific process here at Fort Belknap have had no response. We know 

that historically, a single transaction to be recorded in the Billings Regional Title 

plant has taken 6 months. We cannot comprehend how that office could contemplate 

processing the 50,000+ transactions anticipated in the Buy-back plan from Fort 

Belknap alone over the next several years. We have not seen an upgrade in volume 

capacity in that very important office. 

These funds could mean an unprecedented influx of monies to our local economy. At Fort Belknap, the DOI projected $54 million of the total available would be needed to fund land purchases. These funds will impact our local economy in multiple 

ways. If we could administer the purchase program, local jobs will be created. The 

services needed to support these administrative efforts will support local businesses. 

Purchase funds will go to individuals who often are unemployed otherwise. Their 

families and extended families will all benefit, as will local businesses. Tribal government will benefit from the lease and use of lands purchased. 

But none of this is happening now, as the process the DOI is implementing is uncommunicative and ignores tribal input. We have been saying the same things for 

over a year. The transcripts of the listening conferences will affirm our position that 

we are ready and willing and want to administer these funds now. The Cobell Settlement was a landmark in U.S. Government and tribal relationships. It sought to remedy a long-standing problem of failed government administration of resources. Its focus was to redress problems created for individuals by failed 

government process. 

Our leadership has often commented that it is ironic that funds paid to redress 

problems created by failed government administration should be proposed to be 

tightly administered by the same bureaucracy that created the problem. 

While not perfect, by any means, our people have elected leaders who have administered tribal land buy-back programs for decades. We sincerely would like the opVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\COMPLETE\03AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87534.TXT MARK
42 

portunity to obtain the funds designated by Congress, apply them to our existing 

programs, upgrade those programs where necessary, and get busy with the land 

purchases Congress assigned these funds for in the settlement process. 

We know that the DOI has spent a lot of these monies in the last 18 months on 

hearings, staff and forms. We are quite concerned that millions of dollars which 

should have been spent on local efforts and purchasing lands are now gone, without 

the purchase of a single square foot of land at Fort Belknap! We respectfully ask 

this body to provide oversight and mandate corrections to get these monies to tribes 

to facilitate Congress’ intent to purchase fractionated interests. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our perspective. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. We do have your testimony submitted, 

and definitely we will read it. I do appreciate that comment, because we have a vote on, but I want to finish this hearing. 

And so, Mr. Grant, you are up. 

Mr. STAFNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. That mic on? 

Mr. STAFNE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. YOUNG. Pull it into you. 

Mr. STAFNE. I will take President Azure’s time, so, no. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. You see this thing here, buddy? 

Mr. STAFNE. OK, OK. 

STATEMENT OF GRANT STAFNE, COUNCILMAN, TRIBAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES 

Mr. STAFNE. Good afternoon. On behalf of the Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, as well as the MontanaWyoming Tribal Leaders Council, I thank you for your interest in 

this important subject. My name is Grant Stafne. I am a member 

of the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board. I would like to thank 

Chairman Young, Congressman Daines, and the members of the 

subcommittee, for holding this hearing. 

The settlement of the Cobell litigation presents the United States 

with the opportunity to accomplish great good to redress decades 

of mismanagement, and strengthen tribal government administration of tribal lands, and advance economic security. Tribes obviously welcome any programs that have the potential to undo the 

devastation of fractionated land ownership that began when this 

Congress first enacted allotment acts in 1887. The likelihood of the 

success of these programs can be greatly improved by incorporating 

a few recommendations that many tribes, including Fort Peck, 

have made. In my written testimony I have provided detailed descriptions of these recommendations, which I will now summarize. 

First, with regard to the Cobell Settlement payments, Indian 

Country would greatly appreciate your assistance to expedite the 

long-overdue payments to members of the trust mismanagement 

class. 

Second, with regard to the $1.9 billion DOI Land Buy-Back Program for tribal nations, DOI must establish perimeters for cooperative agreements which we have handed in in June, July, August, 

and, just lately, I hand-delivered it to the Secretary of the Interior 

for funding for outreach efforts based on the size of the reservation, 

the number of land owners, and the amount of acreage and individual ownership. The Fort Peck Reservation is 2.1 million acres. 

43 

Of that reservation, 954,000 is still held in trust; 4,165 original 

allottees were allotted land on our reservation, 320 acres with timber allotments. So, as you are aware, some tracks of land on our 

reservation have 300, 400 owners. 

Third, the Department should immediately disclose land buyback program expenditures for administrative costs. At a minimum, the Department should provide quarterly reports to 

Congress and Indian tribes of its administrative expenditures and 

land purchases. 

Fourth, tribal negotiations to obtain a cooperative agreement 

should occur at the regional level of the BIA, utilizing personnel familiar with our reservations, our level of fractionated ownership, 

and our tribal governments. 

Fifth, the Department should amend its arbitrary decision to 

limit the appraisal shelf life to 9 months. Appraisals should have 

a 12-month shelf life, and a possible 1-year extension to control unnecessary costs, and to preserve the ability to make subsequent 

purchase offers. 

Sixth, Indian tribes, not appraisers, should determine which reservation lands are purchasable. 

Seventh, Interior should disclose any valuation efforts and the 

cost of those efforts for mineral estates. 

Eight, the Buy-Back Program should not require tribes to finance 

all efforts to apply for and negotiate cooperative agreements, contrary to the established practices of startup and pre-award allocations in other Federal contract pursuits. 

Ninth, Interior should reconsider policies that foreclose purchases at probates and exclusion of fee lands to accomplish truly 

meaningful land restoration. 

And, tenth, in order to comply with congressionally mandated 

Indian self-determination policy, the Department should now engage in meaningful consultation with tribes on an implementation 

schedule for the Buy-Back Program, a budget for the program, purchase ceiling amounts, the mineral valuation and appraisal for 

each reservation. By implementing these simple recommendations, 

the Interior Department can live up to its responsibilities set forth 

by Congress under the Cobell Settlement. 

[Speaking native language.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stafne follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRANT STAFNE, COUNCILMAN, TRIBAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, 

ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION

Good afternoon. On behalf of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 

Reservation, I thank you for your interest in this important subject. My name is 

Grant Stafne. It is an honor for me to serve on our tribes’ governing body, the Fort 

Peck Tribal Executive Board, as my parents, June and A.T. Stafne, and my uncle 

Caleb Shields did before me. 

I would like to thank Chairman Young, Congressman Daines, and the members 

of the subcommittee for holding this hearing. The settlement of the Cobell litigation 

presents the United States with the opportunity to accomplish great good: provide 

redress for Indian land owners who were victims of the Interior Department’s failure to provide an accounting of IIM accounts and for some mismanagement of 

Indian trust resources, reduce fractionated Indian land ownership, and attempt to 

redress the negative results of the General Allotment Act through restoration of 

tribal land bases that will promote Indian self-determination, strengthen and advance the economic security of tribal communities, and fulfill the United States’ 

trust responsibility to Indians. The foundation for the trust responsibility has its 

44 

origins in our original land cessions to the United States and the Federal Government’s ensuing obligation to extend its protection to Indian tribes and our reserved 

lands. 

Tribes obviously welcome any program that has the potential to undo the devastation of fractionated land ownership that began when this Congress first enacted Allotment Acts in 1887. Sadly, in its 35-year existence, the allotment of tribal lands 

to individual Indians resulted in the loss of 90 million acres of tribally owned lands. 

Over the years, the daunting task of managing the remaining lands held by individual Indians in small fractionated interests established the basis for the Cobell 

litigation brought on behalf of individual Indians. Including a program to purchase 

fractionated land interests for restoration to tribal ownership in the Cobell settlement benefits tribes and is long overdue. 

COBELL SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS

While payments to individual Indians that were members of the accounting class 

occurred well over a year ago, payments to tribal members in the Trust Mismanagement class of the settlement have not yet received payments. Payment dates have 

been delayed throughout the last year and many individuals are losing faith that 

payments are forthcoming. Indian Country would greatly appreciate your assistance 

to expedite the long overdue payments to members of the trust mismanagement 

class. 

DOI LAND BUY-BACK PROGRAM FOR TRIBAL NATIONS

Unfortunately, the Cobell Settlement was developed without tribal consultation or 

input despite the significant impact the settlement would have on tribal lands. The 

Land Buy Back Program funding, including funds for actual land purchases and administrative costs, were determined without tribal input and without consideration 

of the challenges of trust land purchases on a large scale basis. Further, the Indian 

Land Consolidation Act was incorporated wholesale to govern land purchases without a review of some of the complexities and burdensome provisions of ILCA, in 

light of the timeframe to expend all purchase funds. Indeed, the Cobell settlement 

ignored fundamental Federal Indian policy introduced by President Nixon that ‘‘the 

Indian future’’ should be ‘‘determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.’’ 

DOI initially developed and released a Land Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations 

implementation plan that detailed the settlement components and process for implementation without tribal consultation. In the early consultation sessions, tribes were 

greatly concerned about: (1) the award of funds back to the Department of Interior 

to purchase fractionated lands; (2) the establishment of an education fund as an incentive for individuals to sell trust interests; (3) prohibiting tribes from entering 

into P.L. 93–638 contracts for land buy back implementation; and finally (4) that 

tribes were relegated to providing a priority list of tracts for DOI purchase only. 

However, these components of the Buy Back Program were negotiated by the parties 

and specifically included in the settlement and the 2010 Claims Resolution Act. 

Thus, despite tribal outcry on these issues, the standard response has been that neither the parties to the settlement or Congress is willing to reopen the settlement 

or the approving legislation. Despite the hesitancy to modify the Settlement or legislation, we would propose consideration of minor modifications to the settlement 

agreement and technical amendments to the legislation that would authorize 

P.L. 93–638 contracts for both land purchases and implementation efforts (allowing 

tribal access and control over both land purchase and administrative funds), and revise the management of the education fund. Tribes have repeatedly expressed their 

preference for allocation of the funds directly to tribes rather than to a non-profit 

corporation over which tribes have no control or access to funding. Clearly, education funds in the hand of tribes would best meet the education goals of tribal people. Federal funds, albeit settlement funds, awarded to non-profit entities for the 

benefit of tribal people flies in the face of the government to government relationship and marginalizes the desires of tribes to assist their membership meet educational goals. Justification to amend the P.L. 93–638 restriction is highlighted by 

the testimony below. 

The Interior Department held several consultations that focused on tribal involvement in the Land Buy Back Program. The initial Implementation Plan established 

ceiling amounts of funds for land purchases for each the 40 plus Indian Reservations with the most fractionated lands and Buy Back staff ‘opened the door’ for tribal involvement to assist with any or all of the implementation tasks of Outreach, 

Land Research, Valuation and Acquisition. Tribes believed they could implement 

any of the four tasks and would receive a portion of the total amount of available 

administrative funds for the efforts. Tribes actually understood they could seek 15 

45 

percent of the ceiling amount for administrative efforts. However, the Buy Back Program, without tribal consultation, moved forward with policy decisions that now 

limit tribal involvement to primarily to the outreach task. While we have been attempting to determine appropriate tribal involvement, DOI has proceeded with internal processes to conduct land research, modify the National Title system to generate offers and establish an acquisition process. The result is that tribes will actually only be involved in the Outreach tasks as DOI has moved forward with establishing processes for the other identified tasks which clearly further limits tribal involvement in the implementation process. 

The constant revisions and lack of clear guidance in the program leaves the Fort 

Peck Tribes and Tribes in Montana and Wyoming frustrated and disappointed that 

this rare opportunity for tribal land restoration may fall short of expending all land 

purchase funds within the mandated 10-year period. To avoid such a pitfall, tribal 

support and tribal participation is critical. Tribes can best advocate for the program 

and discuss in detail the drawbacks of fractionated land and the benefits of tribal 

land consolidation. 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

The Land Buy Back Program made a policy decision to utilize ‘cooperative agreements’ for tribal participation in the program although ‘cooperative agreements’ are 

rarely utilized in Indian Affairs and have little regulatory guidance. DOI has developed an application process to obtain a cooperative agreement that consists of a 

Scope of Work Template (allows tribes to specify tasks choose to undertake), a detailed Statement of Work narrative, and SF424 Forms to receive Federal assistance. 

However, no guidance or parameters have been established for tribes to conduct outreach efforts. Without parameters and formulas for funding, interested tribes, including Fort Peck, have engaged in a guessing game with DOI to negotiate cooperative agreements. 

Since I last testified on this subject in December before the Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee, we have been coordinating with a Tribal Relations Liaison, with the 

DOI Land Buy Back Program, located here in Washington, DC to submit a statement of work that meets the program requirements, without specific guidance on 

those requirements. The specific cost and equipment estimates required exceed the 

level of specificity for other contracts with the BIA. While we have had continuous 

discussions with Buy-Back Program staff, I am sorry to report that we still have 

no agreement on basic concepts such as the amount of funding, number of staff persons, and equipment needs to finalize a cooperative agreement. Our experience at 

Fort Peck is consistent with that of other tribes in the Rocky Mountain Region and 

across large land based reservations. As of this date, a very small number of tribes 

have achieved cooperative agreements to participate in implementation efforts despite interest and application from many tribes. 

The cooperative agreement negotiation process has been insulting to Fort Peck 

since I personally have worked in virtually every aspect of Indian land acquisition, 

primarily in local and regional real estate positions with the Bureau of Indian Affairs including the Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services at the Fort Peck Agency. Following Federal service, I went to work for my tribes as the Director of the 

Fort Peck Land Buy-Back program. 

In a little over a year, our tribes re-acquired over 10,000 acres of land on our Reservation using tribal funds. We have the capacity, professionalism and familiarity 

with trust lands on Fort Peck Reservation to efficiently implement land purchases. 

Instead, we are wasting time and money with lengthy negotiations that have yielded no positive results. 

The Buy-Back Program appears to benefit the Federal Government first, and 

Indian beneficiaries, in this case, tribes second. That very notion is reminiscent of 

the Federal Indian policies of yesterday: policies that resulted in the eradication of 

the American bison, the removal of Indian children, and the taking of Indian lands; 

policies that were intended to benefit the government in dealing with ‘‘the Indian 

problem.’’ 

In addition to the above suggestions to revise the settlement and legislation, we 

suggest the following revisions of the current DOI policy determinations to improve 

the implementation of the Buy Back Program. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

First, DOI must establish parameters for Cooperative Agreement funding for outreach efforts based on the size of the reservation, the numbers of landowners and 

amount of acreage in individual ownership. Funding must be proportional to specific 

46 

outreach tasks appropriate for each particular reservation and not set at a flat 

$500,000 per reservation as has been communicated to Fort Peck and other tribes. 

Second, the Department should immediately disclose Land Buy Back Program expenditures for administrative costs. DOI has provided no budget information for the 

new positions created, both at the DC level and in Acquisition centers, no information on the costs to enhance the Trust Accounting and Asset Management System 

(TAAMS) to implement Land Buy Back efforts and most importantly, the cost of 

valuation efforts. No information has been provided, and clearly no consultation attempted, regarding expenditures of the administrative funds. Further, DOI has not 

disclosed financial information on the status of program purchases with the amount 

expended in contrast to the established ceiling amounts to effectively determine 

willingness of individuals to sell interests. No information on the costs for the valuation processes has been disclosed. Full transparency is necessary to determine 

whether the established 15 percent administrative fee amount may need modification for full expenditure of the land purchase funds and to determine how unexpended purchase funds may be reallocated. At a minimum, the Department should 

provide quarterly reports to Congress and Indian tribes of its administrative expenditures, land buy back purchases and time-table to keep Congress and the tribes 

apprised of Department progress to expend the $1.4 billion allocation in a timely 

manner. Fourth, tribal negotiations to obtain a cooperative agreement should occur at the 

Regional level of the Bureau of Indian Affairs utilizing personnel familiar with our 

reservations, our level of fractionated ownership and our tribal governments. Working with the new Tribal Liaisons at the Central Office level of the DOI has been 

slow and ineffective. 

Fifth, the Department should amend its arbitrary decision to limit the appraisal 

shelf-life to 9 months. Appraisals should have a 12 month shelf-life and the possibility of a 1-year extension consistent with current appraisals of trust. The limited 

shelf-life will likely result in additional costs to update outdated appraisals and will 

foreclose sending purchase offers out a second time if little success was achieved in 

the first round of purchase offers. 

Sixth, Indian tribes, not appraisers, should determine which Reservation lands 

are purchasable in Land Buy Back Program. Presently, there is no individual consultation with tribes before DOI determines which land interests are determined 

purchasable and non-purchasable. Tribes as the intended beneficiaries of the land 

purchases must be informed about the criteria to determine lands non-purchasable 

and have an opportunity for input on that determination. Congress should insist the 

BIA discontinue exercising overbroad authority and place decisionmaking authority 

in the hands of elected tribal governments who are accountable to tribal members. 

Seventh, DOI should disclose any valuation efforts, and the cost of those efforts, 

for mineral estates. DOI has stated that it has the capacity to render values for 

mineral estates but has provided vague and topical information on the process and 

the extent of actual valuation efforts. Instead, it appears that DOI is expending limited administrative funds to review fractionated interests and ‘‘mineralize’’ those interests or determine that the mineral interest has development potential and must 

be excluded from the list of purchasable tracts. Excluding tracts that are ‘‘mineralized’’ will limit Buy Back Program success on numerous reservations including Fort 

Peck. DOI should allow landowners to reserve his/her mineral estates and sell the 

surface estates. Currently, the DOI policy for the Buy Back Program is to restrict 

separation of surface and mineral estates, which will deprive many individuals from 

participation in the Program. 

Eighth, the Department should obtain the consent of the tribal government before 

undertaking a reservation-wide appraisal, and provide results of appraisal activities 

to tribes. Further, the appraisal process should be consistent with the tribal government’s land use plans. 

Ninth, the Buy Back Program has determined that tribes must finance all efforts 

to apply for and negotiate a cooperative agreement, contrary to the established practices of startup and pre-award allocations in other Federal contract pursuits, primarily for P.L. 93–638 contracts. The application process has been burdensome and 

labor intensive. The Interior Department is expending Buy-Back funding setting up 

its own capacity to administer the Buy-Back Program. However, tribes are precluded from reimbursement for precious tribal resources that are expended the 

under Cooperative Agreement process. A revision of the policy to allow for startup 

and pre-award costs would facilitate a larger number of responsive applications. 

Tenth, the DOI should reconsider policies that foreclose purchases at probate and 

the exclusion of fee lands to accomplish truly meaningful land restoration. Additionally, tribes that have on-going land purchase activities could be reimbursed for those 

purchases for a cost effective expenditure of the land purchase funds. 

47 

Eleventh, in order to comply with Congressionally mandated Indian Self-Determination policy, the Department should now engage in meaningful consultation 

with tribes on the implementation schedule for the Buy Back Program, a budget for 

the Program, purchase-ceiling amounts, the mineral valuation and mass appraisal 

processes, for each Reservation. 

CONCLUSION

Unless Congress acts now to require meaningful consultation, it appears that the 

Interior Department intends to use the Buy-Back Program as nothing more than a 

vehicle for closure of Individual Indian Money Accounts. Surely Congress intended 

more when it appropriated nearly 2 billion dollars to the Land Consolidation Fund. 

As now contemplated, the Department’s Land Buy Back Program will have limited impact on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Under the Fort Peck Allotment 

Act, roughly two-thirds of the original 2.1 million acres of tribal lands were allotted 

or opened for Homesteading. Now, over half of our Reservation is held in fee simple 

status, mostly by non-Indians and such lands are excluded from the Buy Back Program. True land consolidation can occur on a Reservation like ours only if all interests including fee interests are purchased, including those interest that are no 

longer held in trust. 

I will conclude by saying that while Congress struggles to determine appropriate 

government funding levels, Indian Country is disparately affected. Conditions in 

Indian Country remain among the worst in the country. Indians continue to have 

the highest rates of unemployment, poverty, infant mortality, shorten life expectancy, diabetes, heart disease, chemical dependency, and suicide, to name a few. The 

list is long and must be reversed. 

These conditions are a direct result of Federal policies over the last two centuries; 

polices that promoted paternalistic treatment of Indians and a system of political 

patronage that was wholly inconsistent with the highest fiduciary obligations of the 

United States as our trustee. These policies, in many instances, were designed to 

advance well-being of non-Indians, to the detriment of the Indian population. One 

of those policies resulted in the loss of 90 million acres of Indian held lands. The 

Buy-Back Program cannot give full redress for that loss or its effects, but the Trust 

Land Consolidation Fund does have the potential to fulfill that to which its name 

aspires if implemented by the Interior Department in close partnership with Indian 

tribes. 

Tribal governments are the ultimate beneficiaries of reducing fractionated trust 

parcels on reservations. To ensure that our land use goals are realized, the Department must consult with us. The BIA should expend the proceeds of the Buy-Back 

program only in a manner that reflects the needs of the Reservation community. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives and concerns. I would 

be happy to answer your questions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY RANKING MEMBER COLLEEN HANABUSA

TO GRANT STAFNE, COUNCILMAN, TRIBAL EXECUTIVE BOARD, ASSINIBOINE AND

SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION

Question 1. With regard to Cobell Settlement payments—please help the committee understand what type of responses members of your tribe have gotten from 

either the Department or the Garden City Group, when they call to ask about the 

status of Trust Administration Class payments. 

Answer. Ranking Member Hanabusa, thank you for your interest in the Cobell 

Settlement payments. Payments to the Trust Administration Class have been seriously delayed. Initially, the Garden City Group informed class members that payments would be made in December, 2013. However, to date no payments have been 

made. 

Unfortunately, neither Garden City, nor the Department of Interior, has directly 

communicated with landowners to explain the delay. Instead, Garden City has 

issued public statements indicating that the delays have been caused by the Department of Interior. Interior has not communicated reasons for the delay to class 

members or tribal leaders. Information provided to individual landowners by the 

Department of Interior call center has been vague and information provided varies 

from call to call. 

Moreover, the Department of Interior has not confirmed the final membership of 

the Trust Administration Class. In fact, we understand that Department has allowed submission of appeals from persons claiming omission from the historical accounting class. Tribes have not been informed regarding this appeals process, the 

48 

number of appeals filed, the criteria to resolve an individual appeal, and the financial impact of expanding the historical accounting class. The financial impact is crucial as it will reduce the amount available for Trust Administration Class payments. 

The inclusion of a Trust Administration Class to settle mismanagement of trust 

lands and assets claims generated the majority of criticism of the settlement. Given 

the time that has elapsed since the Cobell Settlement was announced, it is deeply 

troubling that Trust Administration Class members have yet to be informed regarding the timing and amounts of settlement payments. 

Question 2. You criticize the Department for not conducting meaningful consultation with tribes. In your opinion, what would meaningful consultation look like and 

how would it differ from what the Department is presently doing? 

Answer. Thank you. As I indicated in my written testimony, the Buy-Back Program was developed by the Department of Interior unilaterally, without tribal involvement, and in disregard of the congressionally mandated Self-Determination 

policy. Unfortunately, given the time constraints placed upon the Department for 

administering the Program, it is now impractical for the Department to go back and 

conduct meaningful consultation on the planning and development of the Program. 

However, in order to comply with congressional policy, the Department should, at 

the very least, engage in meaningful consultation with tribes and individual Indians 

on every affected Reservation. That consultation must necessarily pertain to the implementation schedule, purchase ceiling amounts, mineral valuations, and the appraisal processes for each Reservation. 

In my written testimony, we provided the committee with 11 recommendations for 

improving the Program. In our view the best way for the Department to engage in 

meaningful consultation is engage tribes in a dialog on each of those recommendations. I will not reiterate those 11 recommendations here. Instead, I would like to 

highlight a couple of areas where direct consultation with individual tribes is critical. 

First, the Department has given appraisers discretion to determine which Reservation lands are purchasable and which are not. In many cases these decisions 

have be made without consultation by the United States as the trustee, or by the 

tribes as an ultimate beneficiary. This grant of authority outside the trusteebeneficiary relationship is an affront to tribal sovereignty, a breach of the Trust 

Responsibility, and is fundamentally unfair to individual Indian landowners. 

The Department should engage in one-on-one consultation with each tribe in 

order to determine which tracts of land are purchasable and which tracts are not. 

This consultation should include in-person meetings with Tribal and Federal technical staff to discuss the criteria used in determining whether tracts are purchasable. Prior to such discussions, tribes will need information from the Department 

specific to their Reservation concerning any criteria the Department believes appropriate for omitting certain categories of tracts. 

It is important to note here the difference between tracts and interests. A tract 

is a parcel of land recorded and managed by the Department as a unit. Generally, 

tracts were allotted to individual Indians or retained by a tribe. Each tract is assigned a specific number. Interest or interests refer to the various ownership interests of a particular tract. As you know the primary purpose of the Buy Back 

Program is to reduce the number of highly fractionated interests. 

Tribes understand that there are legitimate reasons for objective determinations 

as to whether particular interests are purchasable, such as interests that may be 

held by landowners deemed non compos mentis, interests held by a minor, encumbered by a life estate or interests in probate status. However, determining whether 

entire tracts are purchasable is a decision which requires direct tribal involvement. 

Additionally, tribes should have an opportunity to cure the issue rendering the entire tract as non-purchasable, such as the removal of an abandoned home, etc. The 

individually owned tracts are currently in trust, under Bureau of Indian Affairs 

management, and will remain in trust while under tribal ownership if purchased. 

Thus, the existence of abandoned buildings, barns, corrals, or other un-sued improvement pose no additional Bureau of Indian Affairs management responsibilities 

than those that already exist and should not form a basis to omit tracts from the 

purchasable list. 

Second, the Department should immediately engage tribes in individual discussions about how the funds agreed upon in the cooperative agreement process should 

be held. The Department has made a unilateral decision to reimburse tribes for activities under cooperative agreements, or when deemed appropriate advance certain 

funds in the Department’s discretion. The Department should discuss with each 

tribe during the negotiation of cooperative agreements what protocol can be established for tribes to draw down funding upon execution of a cooperative agreement. 

49 

We understand that the Department may wish to ensure that the funding is protected and available to provide intended services. However, there are many ways 

to provide such assurance, while at the same time allowing tribal programs to enhance the funds available by depositing the funds in interest bearing accounts. As 

we understand it, no interest is being earning on the Land Consolidation Fund. 

I urge the committee to demand meaningful consultation by the Department with 

tribes and Indian beneficiaries and require the Department to execute the SelfDetermination laws and policies prescribed by Congress. 

Mr. YOUNG. I hope you said ‘‘thank you.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Because you said, ‘‘Oh, that is it, buddy’’—— 

Mr. STAFNE. Assiniboine and Sioux. We have two tribes on our 

reservation. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Mr. Grijalva, would you like to ask questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to submit 

the questions, thank the leaders that are here, and the questions 

as to the difference between self-determination contracts and cooperative contracts, and sharing the frustration that you pointed out. 

This has been too long, and needs to be expedited. And if there 

are things that we can do, as a Committee, Mr. Chairman, to expedite and still assure all the accountability that is necessary, I think 

we should move in that direction. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman, because we do plan on introducing legislation. I hope we will be working with you to solve 

some of these problems. 

Mr. Daines. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really do appreciate you holding this hearing, this important issue. And as you 

mentioned, this is a ticking time clock right now. And where is the 

incentive for the Federal Government? Because once the clock expires, it goes back to the Treasury. 

Mr. YOUNG. Right. 

Mr. DAINES. And this is why we have to be here, as the accountability here, to get something done. 

As I mentioned, you know, Montana is home to seven federally 

recognized Indian reservations, which are among the highest 

fractionated in the country. At the same time, back home in 

Montana, our unemployment rates are at or near 50 percent out in 

Indian Country. And fractionation makes economic development 

and access to essential services very, very challenging. And navigating this Federal Government bureaucracy becomes even more 

complex, as we heard from our witnesses here today. And the Land 

Buy-Back Program has provided Indian Country with the means to 

improve their future. However, we hear today that the program is 

not working, and the hope in Indian Country is turning into frustration. 

You know, I toured several of the reservations in Montana in the 

beginning of this year. And the implementation of the Land BuyBack Program was the highest issue of concern for most tribes. 

When every tribe is experiencing similar challenges, and we heard 

it here. I mean we heard it across Indian Country in Montana, and 

now we hear it expanded across Indian Country across the United 

States. 

50 

I think we see that the problems here must be systemic, and I 

hope today’s hearing sheds some light on these issues and allows 

us to explore ways to help this program work for Indian Country. 

So thank you for inviting from Montana these Montana tribal leaders, President Mark Azure of the Fort Belknap Indian Community 

Council, and Councilman Grant Stafne from the Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes. 

Let me start with President Azure. Your testimony was enlightening. I appreciate you called the audible there, like Peyton 

Manning, and you just kind of spoke from your heart and your 

head, as well. I was struck by the dead dial tone comment. The 

tribes’ difficulties in dealing with the BIA are unacceptable. And 

please know I am eager to help improve these lines of communication, and do what I can to strengthen the tribes’ voice throughout 

this process. 

But one issue that struck me was how you mentioned the Land 

Buy-Back Program as being ‘‘tightly administered by the bureaucracy that created the problem in the first place.’’ It is frustrating 

to hear that the Federal Government struggles to fix its own mistakes. 

Could you expand on how the program would improve, Mr. President, if the Fort Belknap Tribes had more involvement in the implementation of this program from the very beginning? 

Mr. AZURE. Congressman Daines, I think, just on the surface, 

that we would be engaged from day one, that we would play a huge 

role in it, and that at Fort Belknap we have had a land department 

there, contracted from the BIA, for over 35 years. And so, we have 

worked those kinks out. 

We understand what you have to do, and that dealing with our 

tribal members and I am sure these other chairmen and Councilman Stafne will say the same thing. We know those folks. And 

anybody in the room, in this room right now, they trust us the 

most. They might not trust us all the time. But out of everybody 

in here, they will trust us first. 

And that, you know, when you are involved in this, if we are 

given participation, then we take ownership in it. That means it is 

ours, and that it is up to us to make sure it doesn’t fail. 

And in talking with some folks yesterday, I was told that the settlement wasn’t put in place to create economic development. But 

you mentioned across Montana on reservations, that unemployment is at 50 percent, probably higher on other reservations. But 

I think, for a short term, that is exactly what it is going to do, it 

is going to interject dollars into our communities, and put some 

folks to work. And that is where I get the passion that if it means 

that I get to put 6 people to work or 20 people to work, then they 

are not depending on those other social programs that I oversee. 

And at some point during the fiscal year, I might have to lock the 

door because there is no money to pay those folks that are sitting 

there. 

So, again, Congressman, I think it goes back to if we were allowed to participate, we would have ownership. We know the people the best, we know the land the best. And we would ensure that 

it wouldn’t fail. Thank you. 

51 

Mr. DAINES. Thanks, Mr. President. I have a couple questions for 

Mr. Stafne, but I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. You are out of time, and we are out of time, if you 

want to vote. I am going to go ahead and stay here. If you want 

to stay here, you are welcome. 

Mr. DAINES. You know, let me get these questions going with Mr. 

Stafne. How much time do we have left on the vote? Is it—— 

Mr. YOUNG. You have 2 minutes and 41 seconds. But go ahead, 

and I will let you ask two more questions. 

Mr. DAINES. OK, all right. 

Mr. YOUNG. Then I am going to bang the gavel, so make them 

quick. 

Mr. DAINES. All right. Mr. Stafne, you have given us a list of 10 

recommendations. I wonder if you could prioritize your recommendations that will be at the top three or four. 

And the second question, then I am going to have to go vote, but 

we will get it caught in the record, and that is you have suggested 

the Buy-Back Program should be administered under the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. That is P.L. 93– 

638. How hard would it be for us to make that happen? 

So, there are the two questions. The Chairman will record that 

here, and I am going to have to go off and vote. So, Mr. Stafne? 

Mr. STAFNE. Thank you, Mr. Congressman, Congressman Daines, 

for the question. 

Regarding your first question, 10 recommendations on my bullet 

points. Our cooperative agreements, I would put that on number 

one, maybe consultation and consideration of tribal interests and 

appraisals. Transparency, we need transparency, and then, moving 

the process down to Rocky Mountain Regional Office. 

And 638 question, we can hopefully, with your help, get a 

technical amendment to the Indian land consolidation. More specifically, 25 U.S.C. § 2212, as well as a minor adjustment to the settlement agreement for Indian land consolidation. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Mr. Roberts, you have heard all this. I 

will give you a chance to respond, and then I will ask you a question. 

Mr. ROBERTS. OK. I think, in terms of what the tribal leaders 

have said here at the table, I think that there are a lot of things 

that I agree with them about. And some of which is that what I 

am hearing is we want to implement this quickly and get money 

out to Indian Country. Right? And we are for that. This is a $1.9 billion program. It got up and running in 

December 2012. We said very shortly after it got up and running 

that our goal was to get initial purchases out at a couple of locations. We went to one reservation that was extremely fractionated, 

Pine Ridge. We went to another reservation, Makah, that sounds 

a little bit more like Quapaw, in terms of not the level of 

fractionated interests. We are having some lessons learned there, 

but we are looking to ramp up, and we need to ramp up, because 

we only have 10 years. 

And I have heard, Chairman, you say it, I have heard the tribes 

say it, nobody wants this money to go back to Treasury at the end 

of 10 years. We are focused on spending all of the money over the 

next 10 years. And, quite frankly, some of the tribal leaders have 

52 

said this, is that the money itself, the $1.9 billion, that is probably 

not enough money to solve the problem. 

So, you know, we are working as fast as we can. I think that this 

is helpful, Chairman Berrey laying out, he is ready to go. I have 

heard that from a handful of other tribes. And I know that Fort 

Peck and Fort Belknap, I know they want to be ready to go, and 

I agree with them. Tribes need to be the face of this program. They 

are not going to sell their interests because Kevin Washburn or I 

are telling them to do so. They are going to do it because these tribal leaders are supportive of the program. So I think we have a 

great opportunity here to do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. We are going to work on legislation, and not 

adversarially with you, I hope, and the Department. 638 was opposed by the Department. It is in the law. We have to change that. 

And I hope we have your support in doing so, because I think it 

is the smart way to go. I think it would make everybody happy at 

this table, and it would work much better, because they are feeling 

left out, even though you are doing your best. 

You are relatively new on the block. I am not doing this personal, 

I want you to know. But when we write this legislation, because 

I think it will go very quickly, I want your participation in it, like 

listen to recommendations, so we can get this done and consolidate 

those fractionated areas. And there is a feeling, with all due respect, this is coming from Washington, DC. That settlement really 

shouldn’t have been about that. 

And, by the way, I opposed that settlement. I opposed it vividly, 

because I don’t think it was enough money. If you look at the figures I had long before it was ever settled, we are in the $27 billion 

range. And we ended up with $1.9 billion. Everybody is, ‘‘Oh, that 

is a lot of money.’’ You look at the mismanagement of the Department of the Interior, and the taking of monies away from the tribes 

by every method they had, $1.9 billion doesn’t come close to it. So 

I just want you to know that is where I am coming from. 

So, I hope I have, each one of you chiefs there, I guess you are 

all chiefs, I appreciate your statements, because you have made 

some progress. But I think you will work better if we have a small 

piece of legislation we call technical improvements upon. If we had 

to pass this solution, and they had this, there is no reason why it 

can’t be done. 

And, by the way, I am going to be a little nasty now. Who is in 

charge of this? Are you, Mr. Roberts? Are you in charge of this? 

Mr. ROBERTS. No, Chairman. The Deputy Secretary, Mike 

Connor, and the executive board of the Department of the Interior, 

Secretary Salazar established the executive board. They are in 

charge of it. And Deputy Secretary Mike Connor chairs that board. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Who is on the board? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It is Solicitor Tompkins, Assistant Secretary 

Washburn, Director of BIA Mike Black, Director of BLM, and the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology, Information, and Business Services. 

Mr. YOUNG. But there is nobody from the tribes. Is there? 

Mr. ROBERTS. [No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. No. I don’t want to put you on the spot now, because 

you didn’t pick them. But, see, that is the problem. There isn’t that 

53 

communication. Are all you guys going to be here tomorrow, or do 

you have flights out of here? 

Mr. STAFNE. I will be here tomorrow. 

Mr. YOUNG. The rest, can they, Larry, can they sit down with 

that part of that board, or the two guys in charge, and give them 

the suggestions they have given me, and see if we can’t do some 

of this executively, and get it done quicker, without us having to 

go through legislation? Because this body, the total congressional 

body, is sort of like a snail that doesn’t have any salt on it. It 

doesn’t go very fast. And I would like to see this thing, because the 

sooner we get these reservations consolidated, it is going to be better for the tribes. 

Now, not to put you on the spot, Mr. Roberts, but can they sit 

down and meet with these people? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I know Assistant Secretary Washburn is out 

on travel, he is not in the office tomorrow. I don’t know what the 

other schedules are—— 

Mr. YOUNG. But there are two guys in charge of this you told me. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, there are—— 

Mr. YOUNG. There are two guys in charge of this program. There 

is a board, but the board doesn’t make all the decisions. You have 

two CEOs, or what do you call it, making these decisions, right? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It is the Deputy Secretary with the board. So it 

is—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait a minute—— 

Mr. ROBERTS. The Deputy Secretary chairs the board. 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait, wait. All due respect, now. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Sure. 

Mr. YOUNG. If that is the case, no wonder it is not working, because they don’t have the time. There should be one person in 

charge of the Cobell solution expediting the process. A board never 

works, anyway, you know? I mean I am just looking for solutions, 

Larry. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I hear you, Chairman. You know, I am happy to 

meet with any of these tribal leaders tomorrow that want to meet, 

and hear more directly from them. I know Chairman Berrey was 

talking about how he has had a cooperative agreement submitted. 

I want to talk with him about that after this hearing. I just don’t 

know everyone’s schedules. That is not in my briefing book. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. But you understand, you guys? This is the 

way to get this done. And if they don’t want to do it, being the 

Department, I am going to slow-walk you, I want to know that. 

And then we can solve this problem. If you don’t want to do it, Mr. 

Washburn doesn’t want to do it, you know, then you are going to 

have a little problem. Because this settlement was inadequate to 

begin with, and we are trying to take that inadequacy and make 

it work. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, we are—— 

Mr. YOUNG. That is what I want to do. 

Mr. ROBERTS. We are all on the same page, Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. 

Mr. ROBERTS. We all want it to work. 

Mr. YOUNG. Good enough. Well, thank you all. And there is a 

vote, and if I miss it, you go home and tell my constituents I 

54 

missed the vote because I was willing to sit here and to listen to 

your questions and your answers and your presentations. I thank 

you, because this is an issue I want to settle. And let’s get on with 

it. 

And, Mr. Roberts, you go back and tell Mr. Washburn that this 

is one of my priorities. OK? You got it. Thank you very much. The 

committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER DEFAZIO, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I want to begin by welcoming a fellow Oregonian, Chairman Gary Burke of the Umatilla Tribe. Chairman 

Burke, I had the pleasure a few weeks back of meeting some young leaders from 

your tribe who were in town for a Close Up trip and now I am happy to see one 

of their role models here in person today. I am glad you made the long trek out 

here and I look forward to hearing your testimony. The $3.4 billion Cobell Settlement was reached in order to resolve breach of trust 

litigation between a class of approximately 500,000 Individual Indian Money (IIM) 

account holders and the Federal Government. $3.4 billion seems like a lot of money. 

But we have to remember, it is aimed at compensating individuals for whom the 

United States has a legal fiduciary relationship and toward whom it failed miserably in that duty. After over a decade of litigation, this settlement not only compensates class members directly, but also begins to address the fractionated land 

problem on Indian reservations. 

The Department of the Interior is currently tasked with implementing the settlement and I have heard that some tribal leaders are skeptical of their methods. I 

look forward to hearing testimony from the Department and from tribal leaders. As 

this settlement is implemented, I think we not only have to keep the Department’s 

feet to the fire, but also to be willing to legislate when appropriate to enable them 

to discharge their duties for the benefit of tribes. 

I yield back. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Thank you, Chairman Young. 

I want to start by welcoming our tribal leaders who have come from far and wide 

to be here. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to help us understand what you are facing with regard to the Cobell Settlements implementation. 

Mr. Chairman, our Nation has a sordid history of not living up to its trust responsibility toward American Indians. This fiduciary obligation is, in a sense, a 

bargained for exchange. The United States’ expansion from 13 small colonies to a 

continental superpower was only made possible by working with tribal leaders to 

exchange lands for certain rights and benefits. Generally speaking, the United 

States has an obligation to act as a trustee for the various tribes and individual 

Indians—for many of whom it holds land in trust. When it fails in that duty, it is 

legally responsible to compensate those affected. 

The Cobell Settlement grew out of such a breach of the trust obligation whereby 

the Department of the Interior grossly mismanaged the assets of IIM account holders. Eloise Cobell, on behalf of a class of approximately 500,000 similarly situated 

individuals, began class action litigation in 1996. This dispute was finally resolved 

in 2012 when all appeals associated with the settlement were exhausted. Now, the 

Department of the Interior is charged with implementing the settlement. 

Given that the same Department that caused this problem is charged with implementing its solution, it is understandable that tribes are concerned about the way 

the settlement is being implemented and they fear the potential for mismanagement. That is why one of the most important things lawmakers can do is to ensure 

the Department is implementing the settlement in a way that puts the needs and 

55 

concerns of tribes first. To that end, I appreciate you holding this hearing, Mr. 

Chairman, because I think the time is right for Congress to check on the Department’s progress. I also think Congress should be open to acting through legislation 

if and when it is needed to ensure the Department has everything it needs to get 

the job done. 

I yield back. 

Æ