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

23–536 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–536 

EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR’S LAND BUY–BACK PROGRAM FOR 

TRIBAL NATIONS, FOUR YEARS LATER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 7, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANTHONY WALTERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 7, 2016 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 7 

Statement of Senator Lankford .............................................................................. 38 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 5 

WITNESSES

Azure, Hon. Floyd, Chairman, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Fort Peck Reservation ................................................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Cobell, Turk, Treasurer, Cobell Board of Trustees ............................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Connor, Hon. Michael L., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .. 7 

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

Monette-Barajas, Melvin, President/Executive Director, Indigenous Education, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 25 

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

Tatsey, Hon. Terry, Vice-Chairman, Blackfeet Nation ......................................... 20 

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

APPENDIX

Burke, Hon. Gary, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation, prepared statement ..................................... 41 

Franken, Hon. Al, U.S. Senator from Minnesota, prepared statement ............... 41 

McClanahan, John H., Director, Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 48

Onnen, Hon. Liana, Chairwoman, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 45 

Weston, Hon. Troy Scott, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, prepared statement .. 43 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR’S LAND BUY–BACK PROGRAM 

FOR TRIBAL NATIONS, FOUR YEARS LATER 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

The CHAIRMAN. I call this oversight hearing to order. Let me welcome everyone back. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the Department of Interior’s Land 

Buy-Back Program, including the Cobell Scholarship Fund. 

In 2010, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the 

Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The title in this Act, the Individual 

Indian Money Account Litigation Settlement, authorized and ratified the Cobell settlement agreement. The purpose of the settlement was to resolve a class action lawsuit regarding the Federal 

Government’s accounting and management of over 300,000 individual Indian Trust accounts. 

The settlement agreement established and deposited $1.9 billion 

into the Trust Land Consolidation Fund. Those funds are to be expended during the ten-year period from 2012 to 2022. 

Additionally, the settlement agreement established the Indian 

Education Scholarship Fund, with funds to be transferred from the 

Trust Land Consolidation Fund of up to $60 million. 

On December 17th, 2012, the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal 

Nations was established through a secretarial order. 

The Land Buy-Back Program implements the land consolidation 

component of the Cobell settlement by purchasing fractional land 

interests from willing sellers and then holding those newly purchased lands in trust for the respective Indian Tribes. 

According to the Department of interior, there are approximately 

243,000 owners of nearly 3 million fractional interests in 150 Indian Reservations. Approximately 90 percent of those interests are 

located within 50 Indian Reservations. 

The settlement also establishes an account called the Indian 

Education Scholarship Holding Fund. These funds are to be used 

2 

to provide financial assistance to Native American students to defray the cost of attendance at both post-secondary vocational 

schools and institutions of higher education. Contributions to this 

fund are allocated by a formula from the Trust Land Consolidation 

Fund. 

Last month, the Interior Department released its annual status 

report on the Land Buy-Back Program. The report highlights many 

statistics and informs us that approximately $900 million of the 

$1.9 billion has been paid to 45,600 individuals to consolidate 1.7 

million acres during the last four years. 

The report also suggests that despite the efforts of the Land Buy- Back Program, the $1.9 billion provided in the settlement was not 

enough. There is a floor chart that is available for people to take 

a look at. In fact, the report states and illustrates with these 

graphs that you can see that, after the Land Buy-Back Program 

ends in 2022, the estimated growth of fractional interests will return to pre-Program levels and continue to grow. 

Today’s witnesses will help us determine the success and effectiveness of the Land Buy-Back Program at its four-year anniversary and should assist in the incoming Trump Administration in 

considering this Program’s viability. 

Before I turn to the Vice Chairman for an opening statement, I 

want to first acknowledge Senator Tester’s contribution to the 

Committee as both Chairman and Vice Chairman. I understand 

Senator Udall will be incoming Vice Chairman in the 115th Congress. 

When Senator Tester was chairman of the Committee, we had a 

good working relationship. When the roles switched, we continued 

to have a good working relationship in a bipartisan fashion. Nothing changed. 

Let me say that in the few times we might have disagreed on 

policy, we always agreed on the goal, and that was bettering the 

lives of Tribal communities. We never lost focus, nor did we waiver. 

So I want to personally thank you, Senator Tester, for your leaderships, your dedication to Indian Country. I want to also include 

the same thanks to your staff. 

So, Senator Tester, an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Chairman Barrasso. Thank 

you for those kind remarks. And I want to echo those back to you. 

I think you are going to be moving on to a different committee as 

chairman this next Congress. I just want to thank you for your 

straightforwardness, your ability to be able to get things done on 

behalf of Indian Country, and, quite frankly, the, I think, honest 

communication that we have had. When we disagreed, we disagreed, but we weren’t disagreeable. So thank you for that. And I 

too want to thank your staff for their good work. They have been 

very easy to work with and we thank you for that. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing, because I think the 

last hearing we had on the Land Buy-Back Program was two years 

ago, so I am looking forward to hearing about what progress has 

been made in the last couple years. Land fractionation is a serious 

3 

issue plaguing Indian Country, and I am glad to see this Committee’s continued commitment to address it. 

Before I go any further, though, I want to acknowledge the work 

of Elouise Cobell. Two weeks ago she was awarded, posthumously, 

the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and she could not have been 

more deserving. We would not be talking here today about the success of a land consolidation program or giving millions of dollars 

in scholarship to Native youth if it wasn’t for her decades-long 

fight. 

Her son Turk is here testifying in his capacity as board member 

of the Cobell Scholarship Fund, so I do want to congratulate 

Elouise’s family on her award and thank Turk for carrying on her 

legacy through your hard work helping Native students across the 

Country. 

As a result of Elouise’s efforts in the Cobell settlement, the BuyBack Program has already been great sized in Indian Country. 

Since its start four years ago, the Program has paid out over $900 

million to individual landowners with fractional interests in land 

on 30 reservations, restored nearly 1.7 million acres of land to Tribal Nations, and the Program still plans to reach 105 additional locations over the next five years. 

Addressing the problem of land fractionalization is an important 

step for Indian Country. By returning these lands to Tribes, the 

Land Buy-Back Program has helped Tribal Governments in a number of ways, including addressing jurisdictional issues, protecting 

cultural and natural resources, and developing infrastructure and 

businesses. 

The Program has also provided vital funding to the Cobell Scholarship Fund, which has already helped hundreds of Native students help pay for post-secondary education. In Montana alone, 146 

Native students have received a total of $369,000 in the Scholarship’s first year. I have always believed that education is a foundation for the future of Indian Country, and I look forward to hearing 

more about this work from Turk and Mr. Monette. 

Despite these successes, we have heard some concerns from 

Tribes. The Land Buy-Back Cooperative Agreement process can be 

cumbersome and doesn’t allow for a lot of flexibility for Tribes. 

Many Tribes are interested in when and how the Program can continue in their communities even after its initial run. 

So I hope the discussion today highlights the good work that has 

occurred thus far and identifies opportunities to improve it. There 

is no question that more can be done with this Program to address 

land fractionation in Indian Country. 

I would like to welcome Chairman Azure of the Fort Peck Reservation. Good to have you here. Vice Chairman Tatsey from the 

Blackfeet for sharing their thoughts on the Land Buy-Back Program. I know Fort Beck has had a few hiccups with the program, 

but overall was able to consolidate over $78 million in fractionated 

lands. And Blackfeet offers totaling over $270 million have just 

gone out. I understand everyone has high expectations due to the 

level of outreach conducted by the Blackfeet Tribal members. So I 

want to commend you both for your traveling here today to testify 

and for all your service to tribal communities. 

4 

Finally, as I talked about in the opening, and as the Chairman 

talked about in his closing, I know everyone is aware that in the 

next Congress I am going to be taking over Ranking Member of the 

Veteran Affairs Committee. I want to assure everybody that I am 

going to remain engaged in tribal issues just as I have in the past. 

As was pointed out, Senator Udall will have this seat next Congress and will do a fine job in that capacity. But I am going to remain a member of this Committee and an active one. 

There is a whole lot of work that needs to be done for Indian 

Country, and I am committed to make sure the Tribes across Montana and across this Country have their voices heard and that we 

continue to improve and uphold the trust and treaty obligations 

that we have. So I look forward to working with my colleagues 

when this Committee convenes in January. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. 

Senator Daines? 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking 

Member Tester. 

I would like to wish a very warm welcome to two Montana Tribal 

leaders we have with us today. I had a chance to see both of them 

in my office here this morning, Chairman Floyd Azure of the Fort 

Peck Tribes and Vice Chairman Terry Tatsey of Blackfeet Nation. 

It is certainly a rare occasion that we have two Montanans at the 

witness table and we have two Montanans here on the dais. I think 

we are heading in the right direction with more Montanans ever 

here on Capitol Hill. 

Let me brag a little bit about our two witnesses. Chairman Azure 

was selected to his current term of office in October 2015 and previously served as chair from 2009 to 2012. He also served on the 

Tribal Executive Board prior to that. Chairman Azure was raised 

on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. He owns and operates an 

auto body repair shop in Poplar, Montana. 

Vice Chairman Tatsey was elected to the Blackfeet Tribal Council just this past June. From 1993 until last year he served as Director of Institutional Development of Blackfeet Community College, where he developed educational programs and helped build 

many of the school’s facilities. Prior to service to the college, he 

worked as a rancher for about six years, and prior to that he 

worked at the USDA in a research partnership with AGCanada, as 

well as the Blackfeet Tribe. 

It was also a pleasure to visit with both of you and your fellow 

Tribal members on your reservations this past summer. When we 

were back home during the summer work period, I spent time on 

both your reservations. 

Chairman Azure and Vice Chairman Tatsey, it is truly an honor 

to have you here in Washington, D.C. today. Thanks for making 

the long trip out. 

Well, Montana is home to 12 federally recognized Indian Tribes 

and also the State recognized Little Shell Tribe. We have seven InVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
5 

dian reservations, which are some of the most fractionated in our 

Nation. 

Montana was also home to Elouise Cobell, a member of the 

Blackfeet Nation, of course, who initiated that settlement, the famous Cobell-Salazar class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and 

nearly 500,000 fellow Native Americans which resulted in the establishment of the Land Buy-Back Program. As we know, she is 

the namesake of the Cobell Scholarship Fund. 

As Senator Tester mentioned earlier, consolidating fractionated 

trust lands is critical to economic prosperity on Indian reservations 

and eradicating these outdated remnants of the allotment era. 

While not perfect, the Land Buy-Back Program has benefitted a 

majority of Montana’s seven Indian reservations. I look forward to 

the witness testimonies and today’s discussion. 

Lastly, I do want to express my gratitude to Chairman Barrasso, 

Vice Chairman Tester for their service to this Committee and this 

Congress. I think you both have been great leaders in moving this 

Committee along very efficiently and effectively. I know it is the 

last Committee hearing we are going to have this year, and I wish 

you two the very best here in your new responsibilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Daines. 

Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. I just want to echo the 

remarks that others have made, Chairman Barrasso and Vice 

Chairman Tester. The good work you have done, the bipartisanship, the way you have worked together. And it didn’t matter 

whether one was in the chairman or in the vice chairman; you just 

continued to work in a really positive way for Indian Country. 

So I thank you very much for that, and I know that Native 

Americans across the Country feel very good about that. And I also 

thank you for your kind comments about me assuming the chair. 

We are going to miss you. We didn’t say whether you are staying 

on the Committee, Mr. Chairman, but we hope you are. 

The CHAIRMAN. I look forward to staying on the Committee, Senator Udall, and serving with you. 

Senator UDALL. Good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator UDALL. Good. Well, we look forward to that. 

I would like to briefly recognize a couple of New Mexicans on today’s panel. Welcome to Mr. Melvin Monette and Deputy Secretary 

Mike Connor. Mr. Monette has been a tireless advocate for Indian 

education for many years, and we appreciate you sharing your valuable input here today. 

And this is likely Deputy Secretary Mike Connor’s final hearing 

before this Committee, at least as part of the current administration. I want to thank you for your outstanding service as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and as Deputy Secretary. You 

also served many years with Senator Bingaman on the Committee, 

so you are someone who really knows how Washington works and 

I hope that works for you. 

6 

New Mexico is very proud of you, Mike Connor, and we appreciate all of your service. And I want to recognize that you have 

been a tireless advocate for Indian Country. Some of the most challenging issues at the Department have landed on your plate. 

I want to single out your work on the complex issue of oil and 

gas development around Chaco Canyon. Chaco Canyon, as you 

know, is a major center of ancient Pueblo culture, rich in archeology. Many of the Tribes of the Southwest have ancient ties to this 

sacred area. And I appreciate you accompanying me there to Chaco 

to meet with key stakeholders, and I appreciate your efforts to incorporate the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the resource management 

planning process. 

The Dakota Access Pipeline has shined a light on the importance 

and necessity of tribal consultation. Tribal consultation must be 

conducted in the right way and at the right time in order to foster 

cooperation and avoid conflict. Tribes are sovereign entities; they 

have the right of significant input on development impacting their 

land, their resources, their sacred sites. Chaco Canyon is a sacred 

site for Tribes and it is an important site for New Mexicans and 

all Americans. Resource development around Chaco deserves careful consideration. 

I know you understand and appreciate the need of meaningful 

consultation, and I would like to take this opportunity also to discuss the Dakota Access Pipeline and the need for meaningful tribal 

consultation. I appreciate that there is a range of views on the 

pipeline within this Committee. For my part, I support the Administration’s recent action to deny the current route and evaluate 

other alternatives. The events that have unfolded in North Dakota 

should serve as a wakeup call to us. 

In response to concerns raised by Tribes about the pipeline, the 

Administration held formal government-to-government consultation 

with Native Americans throughout the Country and came to Albuquerque, New Mexico. We had a very good session there. If we need 

congressional action to reform current law, I am all ears on what 

it is and would love to hear about that. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on this Committee to improve the consultation process. 

Finally, I believe the Buy-Back Program has great potential to 

help Tribes protect cultural and natural resources, and I believe it 

can help improve services to tribal members. 

Since December 2013, the Federal Government has paid approximately $900 million to individual landowners and has restored in 

trust the equivalent of nearly $1.7 million acres to the Tribes. This 

has major implications for the Tribes in my State, including the 

Pueblos of Laguna and Zuni, and especially the Navajo Nation, 

which has a large land base and many private land inholdings that 

are potential candidates for buy-backs. 

I Look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses how the BuyBack Program is working and how we can improve on it. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

Senator Heitkamp? 

7 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel somewhat 

obligated to say something nice about Jon Tester, but it is getting 

harder every day. 

I think during the transition I think I tried to make you chairman of the Committee, didn’t I? I think I made a motion back in 

the day to make him chairman. I do apologize; it was a grave error 

on my part and a failure of judgment to do that. 

No, in all seriousness, the Chairman has stated the workings of 

this Committee pretty well; that we all come together with one 

common purpose and in consultation with very many witnesses. 

Senator Tester and I share a lot of commonalities in terms of representing Great Plains Indians, and some of the greatest challenges 

that we have are with the large land tribes maintaining services, 

but also making sure that our children have an opportunity for 

education, an opportunity for betterment. I know that that we will, 

under new leadership in this Committee, we will continue to advance the cause of Native children and advance the cause of Native 

people, and understand that we are all together. 

I can’t go with the member from New Mexico, our Senator from 

New Mexico, taking credit for Melvin Monette. He is a member of 

the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and educated in UND in 

North Dakota, and we are very, very proud of the work that you 

do every day to advance the cause of Indian education, Melvin. So 

thank you. I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew he was 

from North Dakota, and not New Mexico. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that clarification, Senator 

Heitkamp. 

Now is the time to turn to the witnesses. I do want to remind 

the witnesses your full written testimony will be made a part of the 

official hearing record today, so please keep your statements to five 

minutes, so that we may have time for questions. I look forward 

to hearing your testimony, beginning with Deputy Secretary Connor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. CONNOR, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tester, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an 

update on the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. 

I am incredibly proud to have served in an administration that 

has made great progress in improving the government-to-government relationship with sovereign Indian Nations and significantly 

improving how the Federal Government fulfills its trust responsibility to Native people. 

One aspect of the progress made over the last eight years has 

been in restoring tribal homelands. The Land Buy-Back Program 

is a successful part of that legacy and I would like to briefly highlight the Program’s accomplishments, its implementation schedule, 

and the need to work with the Committee and Indian Country on 

long-term solutions to fractionation. 

In 2010, as mentioned, Congress enacted the Claims Resolution 

Act to ratify and confirm the historic 2009 Cobell Settlement 

8 

Agreement. The Act provided a $1.9 billion trust fund for the Land 

Consolidation Fund to compensate individuals who willingly choose 

to transfer fractional land interests to Tribal Nations at fair market value. 

Less than a month following final approval of the settlement, in 

2012, Interior established the Buy-Back Program to work collaboratively across Indian Country with both Tribes and Individuals to 

realize this historic opportunity. I am pleased to report that the 

Buy-Back Program is making significant progress in accomplishing 

its goals. 

Since it began making offers in December 2013, the Program has 

paid more than $925 million to individual landowners and restored 

the equivalent of nearly 1.7 million acres of land to Tribal Governments. To date, we are four years into a ten-year program, we have 

spent 60 percent of the fund for land acquisition activities, and we 

have only expended 22 percent of the resources available for administrative costs. We are proud of that record. 

The Program has relied on significant cooperative efforts both internally within the Department and with Indian Country in achieving these results. It is important to recognize that our governmentto-government working relationship with Tribes has led directly to 

the Program’s successes so far. The Program works with Tribes to 

tailor the implementation strategy at each location, including 

partnering with Tribes through agreements and sharing mapping 

and other information with Tribes. 

Also, by aligning Program resources with Tribal goals and acquisition priorities at each location, we are upholding and respecting 

Tribal sovereignty and self-determination in a meaningful way. We 

have created or increased Tribal ownership in more than 30,000 

tracts of land. In fact, we brought Tribal ownership to greater than 

50 percent in more than 11,000 tracts, consisting of nearly 1.8 million total acres, through the last fiscal year. 

For example, the Program has helped achieve a nearly 300 percent increase in tracts with greater than 50 percent Tribal ownership at the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana. We are already 

seeing the impact that the Program is having on Tribal communities, and our 2016 status report highlights initiatives that Tribes 

are undertaking with consolidated lands, such as economic development, housing, and cultural preservation. 

The Program has actively gathered input from Tribal Governments and landowners to determine its implementation schedule, 

which now includes 105 locations where activities will begin by 

2021. These locations represent nearly all eligible landowners’ fractional interests and equivalent acres. 

Some Tribes on our schedule have expressed concern that the 

Program’s success means that funds would not be available to 

make offers at their location. I want to allay this concern by emphasizing that the Program is managing resources in a manner 

that ensures that funds will be available at a minimum for those 

105 locations we have already announced. 

Let me talk about future work to address fractionation. Approximately 90 million acres of Indian Trust land base were lost in 1934 

because of the Federal allotment policies that were initiated in 

9 

1887. This is an amount larger than the great State of New Mexico. 

Fractionation now affects nearly 11 million tract acres of remaining allotted land across Indian Country, locking up a significant 

area and creating an overly complicated land tenure status where 

single tracts of land, like several at Crow Creek or Navajo, have 

more than 1,200 landowners. Even with the Program’s significant 

progress to date and the results expected through 2022, fractionation will continue to be an extremely complicated, ongoing challenge in the long term. We estimate that more than 4 million 

equivalent acres may still exist after the consolidation fund is fully 

expended in 2022, given that fractionation continues to grow each 

and every day. 

This past spring, Secretary Jewell directed the Program’s Oversight Board to pursue an analysis of options to extend the life of 

the Program so that additional future participants may benefit and 

so the Program could return to locations where implementation has 

already occurred. Preliminary ideas for discussion with Indian 

Country at Interior’s next Listening Session include options for potentially continuing the Program and other policy changes. 

We are seeking to be transparent by showing our significant results to date in the context of the estimated breath of fractionation 

in the long-term. We are also looking to pursue much-needed conversations with Congress and with Indian Country about how we 

can work together for a longer-term solution, and our analysis 

helps show how important it is to remain focused on addressing 

fractionation to preserve trust land for future generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the Land 

Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back Program or Program) on behalf of 

the Department of the Interior. 

I am pleased to report that the Buy-Back Program has made significant progress 

since I last provided testimony to the Committee. I appreciate the continued interest 

of the Committee and the active engagement the Program has had with Committee 

staff over the last several years. 

The Buy-Back Program is currently completing its fourth calendar year. The first 

year was largely focused on planning, consultations, research, analysis, and one-onone engagement with tribal leaders and individuals. This was a critical effort that 

has directly led to the significant success we have seen in just a short time. The 

Program thus far has made more than $2.5 billion in offers to nearly 123,000 unique 

individuals—half of all eligible landowners—for interests at 34 locations. And since 

it began making those offers in December 2013, the Program has paid more than 

$925 million to individual landowners and restored the equivalent of almost 

1,700,000 million acres of land to tribal governments. 

At the end of fiscal year 2016, tribal ownership was greater than 50 percent in 

more than 11,000 tracts consisting of nearly 1.8 million total acres. In particular, 

for example, the Program helped achieve nearly a 300 percent increase in the number tracts with greater than 50 percent tribal ownership at the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana, as highlighted in our 2016 Status Report. 

Every day we are seeing the difference being made by this Program, which is just 

one example of this Administration’s commitment to provide more sustainability for 

landowners, their families, and tribal communities for the benefit of generations to 

come. The Department has been taking significant and lasting steps toward fulVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
10 

filling President Obama’s goal of strengthening and investing in tribal communities 

through this exceptional opportunity. I believe that the partnerships and collaboration we have entered into in Indian Country will have a lasting, positive impact on 

relationships with tribal nations for years to come. 

Program Background 

The historic legislation to ratify and confirm the 2009 settlement between Plaintiffs and the Federal Government in the Cobell litigation was enacted in 2010. The 

Claims Resolution Act provides a foundation for addressing the fractionation of Indian lands that was set in motion under the long repudiated policies of allotment 

and assimilation. The Cobell Settlement was approved with finality on November 

24, 2012, following the exhaustion of appeals through the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In that legislation, Congress enacted the $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation 

Fund to compensate individuals who willingly choose to transfer fractional land interests to tribal nations at fair market value. Less than a month following final approval, the Department established the Buy-Back Program to work collaboratively 

across Indian Country, with both tribes and individuals, to realize this historic opportunity. 

In recognition of the size and importance of the Settlement, then-Secretary 

Salazar established the Buy-Back Program in the Office of the Deputy Secretary. 

The Secretary also established an Oversight Board, chaired by the Deputy Secretary 

and including as members the Solicitor, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, the 

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

Indians, to ensure senior level attention and to facilitate accountability and coordination across the Department. The Buy-Back Program Director is responsible for 

leading and coordinating the efforts of the various offices and bureaus with responsibility for assisting in implementing the Program. The Program Director reports directly to me and meets regularly with the Oversight Board. 

Impact of Fractionation 

Although the federal policy of Allotment ended in 1934, the impacts of that policy 

continue to reverberate across Indian country. Approximately 90 million acres— 

larger than the state of New Mexico—of tribal lands were lost, many of those lands 

sold to non-Indians. In addition, some allotments provided to individuals were held 

in trust or restricted status. These trust and restricted allotments often pass to the 

children, spouses, and other relatives of the original and successive landowners, who 

thus inherit undivided common ownership interests in the land. As a result, fractionation of those original trust and restricted allotments has grown exponentially 

over generations. 

Fractionation now affects nearly 11 million tract acres of remaining allotted land 

across Indian Country, locking up a significant area and creating an overly complicated land tenure status where single tracts of land, like those at Crow Creek 

or Navajo, have more than 1,200 landowners. When tracts have multiple co-owners, 

it is difficult to obtain the required approvals for leases or other uses of such lands. 

As a result, many tracts are unoccupied and unavailable for any purpose. For example, during FY 2016, more than 65 percent of individual owners received $25 or less 

in land-related income to their Individual Indian Money (IIM) account. 

In addition, as a result of fractionated ownership of allotted lands and the checker-boarded nature of land ownership patterns on many reservations, tribes are experiencing major challenges that impact tribal sovereignty and self-determination. For 

example, fractionated ownership can make it hard to protect or obtain access to sacred or cultural sites, and the checkerboard ownership pattern creates jurisdictional 

challenges and ties up land within the reservation boundaries, making it difficult 

to pursue economic development. 

The Buy-Back Program is the primary land consolidation effort, and the results 

to date are notable. As of September 2016, for locations with Program sales, the 

total fractional interests decreased approximately 21 percent from 2013 to 2016, 

with some locations in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions decreasing by 

approximately 35 percent. 

Program Overview 

The principal goal of the Buy-Back Program is to reduce the number of fractional 

land interests through voluntary sales that place purchased interests into trust for 

tribes. These transfers consolidate trust land bases for conservation, stewardship, 

economic development, or other uses deemed beneficial by sovereign tribal nations. 

The five overarching parameters that guide the design and implementation of the 

Buy-Back Program are: 

11 

• First, in 2012, the Department identified approximately 2.9 million fractional 

interests across approximately 150 locations that may be purchasable by the 

Buy-Back Program. These fractional interests are owned by more than 243,000 

owners and concentrated within a few locations in Indian Country. In the first 

few years of implementation, the Program’s schedule focused primarily on highly fractionated locations. The Department has since announced a total of 105 

locations on which implementation will begin by mid-2021. The schedule, expanded in FY 2016, represents more than 96 percent of all landowners and 

more than 98 percent of both purchasable fractional interests and equivalent 

acres. 

• Second, the Settlement limits the amount of money the Department may use 

for costs associated with the various phases of implementing the Program. By 

law, no more than 15 percent ($285 million) of the Consolidation Fund may be 

used for implementation costs in order to maximize the amount available for 

purchasing fractional interests. Furthermore, the Settlement requires that the 

Consolidation Fund be expended by November 24, 2022. Accordingly, the Program must be cost efficient and act expeditiously when administering the Consolidation Fund. 

• Third, despite the large size of the Consolidation Fund, it will not be sufficient 

to purchase all fractional interests across Indian Country. The value of the land 

corresponding to the equivalent purchasable acres exceeds $1.555 billion. The 

Program estimates that more than 4 million purchasable fractionated acres 

(valued at several billion dollars) will remain following full use of the Consolidation Fund by 2022. The Program has primarily focused on those acquisitions 

that best reduce fractionation, address the effect of allotment, promote tribal 

sovereignty, and facilitate economic development. The Program is assessing the 

viability of continued efforts and new solutions to address land consolidation in 

the long term. 

• Fourth, the Program is a willing seller program, meaning each individual landowner who receives an offer can choose to sell or not sell his/her interests. Full 

use of the Consolidation Fund depends on the number of interests individuals 

choose to sell. 

• Fifth, the active participation of tribes in identifying priority tracts is a crucial 

component of Program implementation. The involvement of tribes in explaining 

what land consolidation means on their reservations is also key. Over the past 

four years, the Program has worked with tribes to build relationships and expand outreach efforts to increase landowner awareness. 

The Program’s land consolidation processes are categorized into four phases: outreach, land research, valuation, and acquisition. The outreach phase involves consultation with the tribe about various planning matters, such as tribal priorities and 

involvement, and working with communities so that individuals are aware of the opportunity to sell fractional interests. As this initial outreach is occurring, research 

concerning reservation lands happens simultaneously. Once the research is complete, the Program values fractionated tracts using various professional appraisal 

valuation techniques (mass appraisals, project reports, or site-specific appraisals). 

Finally, once fair market value determinations have been made, the Program develops an offer set and mails offer packages to eligible individuals for their consideration. Additional outreach occurs after offer packages are sent to answer landowner 

questions. 

Although the Program is active at multiple reservations simultaneously, given 

this limited implementation funding, and timing and practical considerations, such 

as a limited appraisal validity period, the Program cannot actively operate at all locations immediately, and is only active at each location for a limited period. As the 

Program completes land consolidation activities at current locations, it continuously 

starts operations at successive locations. 

Government-to-Government Collaboration 

Our government-to-government working relationship with sovereign tribal nations 

across Indian Country has directly led to the Program’s successes thus far. The Program works with tribes to tailor the implementation strategy to the needs and culture of each tribe, including partnering with tribes through agreements, sharing information and data, considering tribal feedback when developing the Program’s implementation schedule, and working to value and acquire lands that are a tribal priority. 

To date, the Program has entered into agreements with 40 tribes to implement 

land consolidation activities on their reservations. These agreements are of two 

types and present a way for tribes to formally collaborate with the Program on imVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
12 

plementation activities. First, the Program has used cooperative agreements, which 

are legal instruments similar to grants, representing the relationship between the 

Federal Government (i.e., Buy-Back Program) and a recipient of funds to perform 

certain activities. Second, it has entered into memoranda of agreement (also known 

as memoranda of understanding) with several tribes. These are used when there is 

an agreement to exchange information or coordinate programs but no funding is 

provided. 

The Program provides tribes with mapping information, ownership information, 

and landowner information products at several points throughout the implementation process including during priority tract selection, before offers are sent, during 

the offer period, and after the offer period closes. Tribes can use these products to 

plan outreach events, conduct outreach activities, and identify tribal acquisition priorities. Tribes may also use this information to plan for other land consolidation activities. 

The Program has considered tribal feedback when developing its overall implementation strategy. For example, the Program reviewed tribes’ submissions to build 

its expanded implementation schedule. From this Planning Initiative, the Program 

added 63 tribes to the schedule. The Program continues to welcome tribal feedback 

through meetings and its annual Listening Session. 

Finally, as mentioned previously, tribes’ identification of acquisition priorities is 

an important part of the Program. The Program works with tribes to identify priorities early in the implementation process, and, to the extent possible, considers tribal priorities during implementation. The Program also seeks to appraise these tracts 

or acquire fractional interests in them. Program staff provides support to tribes by 

using maps and other data to assist with selection of priority tracts or areas. 

Implementation Strategy—Schedule of Locations 

The Buy-Back Program held an open solicitation from November 8, 2013, through 

March 14, 2014, during which tribes with jurisdiction over the most fractionated locations were invited to submit letters of interest or cooperative agreement applications to express their interest in participating in the Program. In November 2014, 

the Department announced 42 locations where land consolidation activities such as 

planning, outreach, mapping, mineral evaluations, appraisals, or acquisitions are expected to take place through the middle of 2017. By including some less-fractionated 

locations in early implementation efforts, the Program has gained experience and 

input to inform implementation at future locations. 

In November 2015, the Program announced a Planning Initiative to develop an 

expanded implementation schedule. The two-pronged Planning Initiative gathered 

input from tribes and landowners. The Program received 57 Expressions of Interest 

from tribal governments and 27,500 individuals registered as willing sellers through 

the Planning Initiative’s deadline of March 11, 2016. Registration as a willing seller 

in no way commits a landowner to sell—nor does it guarantee that a landowner will 

receive an offer—it was simply the best way to ensure the Program was aware of 

interest as a consideration for the schedule. From that review, the Department 

added 63 more locations to its schedule, which it announced in May 2016. 

The 105 locations planned for Program implementation represent the vast majority of the total landowners and fractionated land across Program-eligible locations, 

representing more than 96 percent of all eligible landowners as of 2013; more than 

98 percent of both purchasable fractional interests and equivalent acres; all of the 

10 BIA regions with fractionated tracts; and all 19 states with fractional interests. 

Based on tribal feedback, the Program has used various criteria to determine the 

best sequence of implementation, including: severity of fractionation (a locations 

number of fractionated tracts, interests, and acres); degree of ownership overlap between locations or geographic proximity; diversity of geographic locations to maximize efficiency, resources, and learning opportunities, especially for initial efforts in 

order to facilitate learning; appraisal complexity; overall interest of the tribe as 

demonstrated through the FY 2014 open solicitation and FY 2016 Planning Initiative periods; number of owners who have demonstrated an interest in selling fractional interests; and cost and time efficiency. 

Our pursuit of this aggressive implementation schedule will provide new opportunities, but it will also yield new challenges. As we work with locations that have 

more complicated terrains, appraisal circumstances, and ongoing legal matters, we 

anticipate a greater need to work closely with tribal governments to reach resolution. Items that we continue to work through in collaboration include: public domain 

or off-reservation lands; the potential purchase of ‘‘restricted fee’’ interests (which 

require an environmental screening process to ensure that the Department is not 

taking lands into trust on behalf of a tribe that may have environmental issues), 

13 

and implementation of the Program on land where multiple tribes may have jurisdiction, such as the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. 

Our work to gain insight and lessons learned will remain constant throughout the 

life of the Program. 

Economic & Local Community Benefits 

In addition to the significant impact we are seeing for land consolidation, money 

received by landowners through the Program is generating spending in local areas 

and supports economic activity. According to an analysis completed by the Department’s Office of Policy Analysis in FY 2016, Program payments to landowners nationwide have already contributed an estimated $911 million in value added to the 

economy and $1.7 billion in economic output, and supported about 10,000 jobs nationwide. Landowners often spend income earned from land sales in their local 

economies or have used this income to reinvest in reservations. 

There are additional ways in which the Program is having a positive impact on 

tribal communities. For example, tribes earn income from newly-consolidated lands, 

more than $9 million from land consolidated through the Program since calendar 

year 2013. Some tribes have used the new income to acquire land held in fee status. 

Tribes that have participated in the Program are also exploring ways to best use 

newly-acquired land. For example, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

of the Salt River Reservation in Arizona is studying the potential commercial uses 

of 58 acres acquired under the Buy-Back Program. Many other tribes have plans 

for further development or protection of newly-consolidated lands. Some other examples of tribal initiatives include: 

• The Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota plans to construct several new buildings in the Wakpamni Lake Community on land consolidated through the Program, including space for local food distribution storage, office space, a conference room, community board room, multipurpose space, a civic center, and 

a day care. The Tribe is also embarking on a major housing program, aided by 

the recent acquisition of land through the Program. 

• As a result of Program purchases, the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington 

State is now better able to protect its world-class oyster beds. Without control 

of upland, there was always a threat to development or logging that would impact shellfish, especially if lands reverted back to fee due to fractionation. 

• Land secured in trust for the Crow Tribe in Montana will be used for a new 

community water plant on land that is now 100 percent tribally owned as a result of the Program. The current water plant is not able to provide drinkable 

water to the growing community of approximately 5,000 individuals. This effort 

demonstrates how the Administration and the Tribe are working together to enhance Indian water rights, building on the 2012 Crow Tribe-Montana Water 

Rights Compact which authorized funding to plan, design and construct a Municipal, Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) water system and to rehabilitate and improve the Crow Irrigation Project. 

Lessons Learned 

As we continue to implement the Program, we have incorporated lessons learned, 

best practices, and tribal feedback to enhance the overall effectiveness of our implementation strategy. Each of our annual Status Reports shares what we have heard 

and learned and how that input is being reflected in our day-to-day operations. 

For example, the Program partnered with the U.S. Census Bureau to mail a survey to approximately 54,000 landowners with interests at 20 locations who were 

sent offers in calendar years 2014 and 2015. Nearly 6,000 landowners responded, 

and these responses will help the Program better understand why landowners are 

or are not participating in the Program and what, if any, improvements the Program can make to better serve landowners. 

In March 2016, for the third consecutive year, the Program gathered tribal feedback at a Listening Session, which I hosted. The event allowed federal officials to 

share programmatic updates and hear from participants about improving Program 

implementation across Indian Country. Key topics raised or emphasized by participants included information sharing, coordination of Departmental efforts, the voluntary nature of the Program, and the importance of consolidating and restoring 

tribal lands to protect tribal culture and traditional practices. 

Both tribes and individuals have expressed a need to make participants aware of 

the financial implications of receiving funds for the sale of fractional interests. Towards that end, the Program, through the Office of thee Special Trustee for American Indians and its partners, has increased financial education opportunities at locations scheduled to receive offers. 

14 

In October 2015, the Program hosted a Tribal Outreach Workshop to facilitate discussion among tribes preparing for outreach and those that had recently implemented the outreach phase of the Program. Tribes shared lessons learned, including 

the importance of planning and communication between BIA, OST, and Program 

staff; soliciting support from tribal leadership; customizing outreach materials; inviting landowners to events that may live on nearby reservations; and providing 

landowners with other options if they choose not to sell their land through the Program. 

Future Work to Address Fractionation 

The reduction in fractional interests through the Program is encouraging, but the 

Land Consolidation Fund will not be sufficient to purchase all fractional interests 

across Indian Country. The Program estimates that more than 4 million equivalent 

purchasable fractionated acres may still exist after it fully expends the Consolidation Fund, which is expected to occur before November 24, 2022, the date by which 

the Settlement dictates that any remaining funds be returned to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

Even with the Program’s significant progress to date—including increasing tribal 

ownership in nearly 11,000 tracts, consisting of nearly 1.8 million acres, to greater 

than 50 percent—and the results expected through 2022, fractionation will continue 

to be an extremely complicated, ongoing challenge in the long term. 

Sustained departmental, congressional, and tribal attention to a range of measures will likely be necessary to address the problem and maximize the value of the 

land base for the benefit of tribal communities. Because fractionation continues to 

grow each day, the progress achieved by the Program in reducing the overall number of fractional interests will be compromised absent continued efforts. 

In May 2016, Secretary Sally Jewell directed the Oversight Board to pursue an 

analysis of options to extend the life of the Program so that additional future participants may benefit and so that the Program could return to locations where implementation has already occurred. Preliminary ideas, for discussion with Indian 

Country at the Program’s next Listening Session, include options for continued land 

purchases in the long-term and policy changes aimed at helping address problems 

created by fractionation. 

A long-term commitment to land consolidation will produce several benefits, including improving government-to-government relationships, increasing tribal sovereignty and self-determination, fostering cultural preservation, and enhancing economic and social development. 

The Department looks forward to working with the Committee and leaders in the 

U.S. Congress on long-term strategies for land consolidation and other efforts to address the issues caused by allotment. 

Conclusion 

The Claims Resolution Act has provided a unique opportunity for the Department 

and tribes, working together with substantial resources, to help address a longstanding and serious problem. The Land Buy-Back Program strengthens tribal sovereignty by transferring lands to tribes, spurring economic development and 

unlocking the potential of tribal lands. As we move forward together, we will continue to implement the Program in a fair and equitable a manner that maximizes 

the use of funds to consolidate tribal lands through voluntary purchases from 

allottees. 

We appreciate the Committee’s interest in the Program, and look forward to continued discussions to preserve and strengthen trust lands. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. Welcome back to the 

Committee. Thanks for your relationship with us over the past several years. We appreciate you being here to testify today. 

Next I would like to turn to the Honorable Floyd Azure, who is 

Chairman of the Fort Peck, Poplar, Montana. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FLOYD AZURE, CHAIRMAN, ASSINIBOINE 

AND SIOUX TRIBES, FORT PECK RESERVATION 

Mr. AZURE. Good afternoon, Senator Barrasso and Senator Tester 

and Senator Daines. I am Floyd Azure, Chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. 

15 

I am honored to present testimony today in support of efforts to 

continue, and implementation of, the Tribal Nations Land BuyBack Program. The Cobell settlement endorsed by Congress pro- vided a total of $3.1 billion to address the Individual Indian Money 

accounting claims, some mismanagement of the underlying trust 

assets, and designated $1.9 billion to purchase fractionated lands 

from individual Indians for restoration back to the Tribes. 

The Land Buy-Back Program created a rare opportunity to restore land base through the Department of Interior’s purchase of 

fractionated trust land interests from willing individual Indian 

owners. The Department of Interior commenced Land Buy-Back efforts by first identifying the 40 Indian Reservations with the highest incidents of fractionation and establishing projected purchase 

ceilings for each reservation. The Fort Peck Reservation was 

ranked as the reservation with the sixth highest number of purchasable fractionated interest with an initial purchase ceiling price 

of $80,082,500. 

In July 2015, the Fort Peck Tribes and the Interior entered into 

a cooperative agreement to provide landowner education prior to 

and during implementation of the Program on the Fort Peck Reservation. The Department of Interior began implementation in midSeptember 2015 and sent initial offers to the landowners of Fort 

Peck Reservation lands that included mineral tracts under lease 

and production. 

These initial offer packages were determined in error as the Department of Interior had determined mineral tracts under production were not purchasable due to complexities of the valuation of 

producing mineral tracts. Thus, the initial offers were followed by 

a second wave of corrected offers that excluded producing mineral 

tracts, but did include mineral tracts under lease with a new valuation that included the mineral lease rental. 

The confusion with the initial offers and corrected offers caused 

skepticism and distrust of the Buy-Back Program. Despite the fact 

that the Department of Interior and the Tribes held numerous additional outreach sessions to explain the offer packages to the landowners and provide information on the valuation process, only 38.9 

percent of the purchasable fractionated interests were acquired. 

For this reason, we think that another round of offers should go 

out at Fort Peck so that my Tribe can enjoy the full benefit of what 

was planned for Fort Peck for the mistake by the Program. 

Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the Program, an equivalent of 

218,340 acres were acquired for the Tribes, at a total cost of 

$69,838,840, which was approximately $11,000,000 short of the initial purchase ceiling allocated to the Fort Peck Reservation. The 

Land Buy-Back Program greatly assisted with the overall goals of 

Tribal land restoration and consolidation and placed the Tribe in 

a minority ownership position in 3,175 tracts and a majority ownership position in 1,292 tracts. Further, the Tribe has leased a majority of the equivalent acreage acquired of 218,340 acres for a significant increase in Tribal agricultural land revenue. 

However, fractionated land ownership continues to exist after the 

Buy-Back Program. Presently, 4,609 fractionated tracts with an 

equivalent acreage amount of 702,332 remain in individual Indian 

fractionated ownership, illustrating the fact that additional consoliVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
16 

dation efforts are critical to fully restore the Fort Peck Reservation 

land base. Additionally, these remaining fractionated interests are 

an ongoing management burden for the Fort Peck Agency Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. 

Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes support the continuation of the Land 

Buy-Back Program and have suggestions for improving the Program. In terms of the way to improve the Program, we would recommend the Tribes be empowered to craft and carry out the implementation of the Program. We feel the success of the Program was 

encumbered by the Department of Interior’s cumbersome approval 

process for all activities, including travel. Tribes should be allowed 

the autonomy to conduct outreach efforts as they deem effective 

without the burdensome oversight of the Interior. 

Second, we would recommend extending the shelf life of the appraisals. Right now, the Department of Interior appraisals for the 

Buy-Back Program has a shelf life of nine months established by 

the Department of Interior policy. However, standard trust land 

appraisals outside the Land Buy-Back Program have a standard 

shelf life of one year and can be extended if transactions are not 

complete. Extending the shelf life of the appraisals would allow for 

several waves of landowner offers without expending additional administrative funds to update such appraisals. 

Third, we believe there needs to be a greater coordination in consultation with the Tribes in the determination of the purchasable 

and non-purchasable tracts that would allow the Tribe to develop 

strategies such as mandatory home site leases for tracts with 

homes to maximize the number of tracts for purchase. 

Fourth, we think that the Program should be expanded to offer 

acquisition of land that only has one owner. Across Indian Country, 

some lands are still owned by one owner although these lands have 

the potential to become fractionated upon the death of the landowner. Additionally, true land consolidation must include restoration of reservation fee lands to Tribal ownership. Allowing the Program to purchase available fee lands would enhance consolidation 

and maximize Tribal control and development of the Reservation. 

Finally, the area where we see the need for greater legislative 

change is in the Education Scholarship Fund. We understand that 

the Cobell Settlement Scholarship Fund now has approximately $40 million. However, the Fund has resulted in only $3 million in 

actual student scholarships awarded. While the land acquired on 

the Fort Peck Reservation resulted in a significant contribution to 

the Fund, there is no assurance that this Fund will provide any 

educational benefits to our members. The Fort Peck Tribes recommend revising the management of the Scholarship Fund to allow 

Tribal participation in the use and award of the scholarship funds. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Azure follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FLOYD AZURE, CHAIRMAN, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX

TRIBES, FORT PECK RESERVATION

Good afternoon. Chairman Barasso, Senator Tester and honorable members of the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I am Floyd Azure, Chairman of the Assiniboine 

and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. I am honored to present testimony 

today in support of efforts to continue and improve implementation of the Tribal Nations Land Buy-Back Program initially established by the 2010 Claims Resolution 

17 

Act that included the Cobell settlement. The Cobell settlement, endorsed by Con- gress, provided a total of $3.1 billion to address Individual Indian Money accounting 

claims, some mismanagement of underlying trust assets, and designated $1.9 billion 

to purchase fractionated lands from individual Indians for restoration back to 

Tribes. 

The General Allotment Act and subsequent allotment acts awarded lands held collectively by Tribes to individual Indians which drastically diminished Tribal land 

bases and resulted in a loss of over 90 million acres of Tribal lands. Individual Indian allottees and their heirs soon lost meaningful management authority of allotted 

lands due to the onset of fractionated ownership. Congress recognized the failure of 

the allotment policy and ended the practice in 1934 with adoption of the Indian Reorganization Act. Further, Acts of Congress have created tools to attempt correction 

of the allotment of Tribal lands and provide opportunities for Tribal acquisition of 

fractionated lands; however, none of these efforts provided critical funding to 

achieve widespread Tribal land base restoration and consolidation efforts. Land restoration efforts that reduce fractionated land ownership will enhance Tribal control 

over reservation lands and reduce the management responsibilities of the Federal 

Government for highly fractionated lands. 

Fort Peck Participation in the DOI Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal 

Nations 

The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations created a rare opportunity to restore Tribal land bases through the Department of Interior’s (DOI) purchase of 

fractionated trust land interests from willing individual Indian owners. DOI commenced Land Buy-Back efforts by first identifying the 40 Indian Reservations with 

the highest incidence of fractionation and establishing projected purchase ceilings 

for each Reservation. From the outset, Tribes challenged the purchase ceilings as 

they did not appear based on the value or number of the interests but instead on 

an allocation of the total available funding for each reservation. Fort Peck was 

ranked as the Reservation with the 6th highest number of purchasable fractionated 

interest with an initial purchase ceiling price of $80,082,500. 

DOI also developed an Implementation Plan that included collecting land data 

and research, valuation of lands designated purchasable, outreach to individual 

landowners and, finally, acquisition. Fort Peck has had a long-standing fee and 

trust land acquisition program and initially proposed to assist the Department with 

collecting data on Reservation lands, assisting with valuation and negotiating offers 

with individual landowners. However, as the program evolved, DOI utilized existing 

digital data for reservation lands and established a ‘mass appraisal’ process that relied largely on comparable land sales in areas surrounding each reservation. Thus, 

opportunities for meaningful Tribal involvement were diminished and only the outreach component was available for Tribal implementation. 

After negotiations with DOI, Fort Peck entered into a cooperative agreement with 

the Department of Interior in July, 2015 to provide landowner outreach and education prior to and during implementation of the program on the Fort Peck Reservation. Pursuant to the approved outreach efforts, the Tribes held events to educate 

and prepare landowners for purchase offer packages. Tribes were also consulted to 

establish priorities for purchase. However, Fort Peck, like most other Tribes chose 

not to determine priorities to ensure that the Tribe did not interfere with an opportunity for all willing landowners to participate. 

DOI began implementation in mid-September, 2015 and sent initial offers to landowners of Fort Peck Reservation lands that included mineral tracts under lease and 

production. These initial offer packages were determined in error as DOI had determined mineral tracts under production were not purchasable due to the complexities 

of the valuation of producing mineral tracts. Thus, the initial offers were followed 

by a second wave of corrected offers that excluded producing mineral tracts but did 

include mineral tracts under lease with a new valuation that included the mineral 

lease rental. Obviously, the confusion with the initial offers and corrected offers, 

while not applicable to all the offer packages, caused skepticism and distrust of the 

Buy-Back Program. Despite, the fact that DOI and the Tribes held numerous additional outreach sessions to explain the offer packages to landowners and provide information on the valuation process, only 38.9 percent of purchasable fractionated interests were acquired. 

At the conclusion of the program, an equivalent of 218,340 acres were acquired 

for the Tribes at a total cost of $69,838,840.00, which was approximately 

$11,000,000 short of the initial purchase ceiling allocated to the Fort Peck Reservation. The Land Buy Back Program greatly assisted with the overall goals of Tribal 

land restoration and consolidation and placed the Tribe in a minority ownership position in 3,175 tracts and a majority ownership position in 1,292 tracts. Further, the 

18 

Tribe has leased a majority of the equivalent acreage acquired of 218,340 acres for 

a significant increase in Tribal agricultural land revenue. 

However, fractioned land ownership continues to exist after the Buy-Back program. Presently, 4,609 fractionated tracts with an equivalent acreage amount of 

702,332 remain in individual Indian fractionated ownership illustrating the fact 

that additional consolidation efforts are critical to fully restore the Fort Peck Reservation land base. Additionally, these remaining fractionated interests are an ongoing management burden for the Fort Peck Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Continuation of the Land Buy Back Program 

The Fort Peck Tribes support the continuation of the Land Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations with additional funding beyond the $1.9 from the Cobell Settlement. 

The program has placed the Tribes in a decisionmaking position on many tracts and 

moved consolidation efforts much further toward completion. However, additional 

funding, beyond the Cobell Settlement funds, will be necessary to continue Tribal 

land base restoration and consolidation efforts and to decrease the costly burden of 

DOI management of fractionated land interests. The Land Buy-Back Program is approaching $1 billion in land purchase expenditures with many Reservations awaiting participation. While DOI reports detail the specific number of individual landowner interests purchased, the data also reveals a significant number of interests 

that remain in individual ownership. With additional funding, the program can enhance purchase efforts and also return to reservations for additional waves of offers 

to maximize landowner participation. 

Increase in Tribal Outreach Funding 

DOI negotiated Cooperative Agreements with Tribes, including Fort Peck, for 

Tribal implementation of outreach efforts to individual landowners. Tribes generally 

wrote proposals for staff, space and equipment needs and outreach event funds. 

While DOI relied heavily on Tribes to promote the Land Buy-Back program and to 

educate landowners on the benefits of Tribal land consolidation, the funds awarded 

to Tribes fell far short to meet these lofty objectives. In fact, Fort Peck received less 

than 1 percent of the established purchase ceiling amount to conduct outreach efforts to Tribal landowners. Increased funding to Tribes for the Outreach component 

of implementation would maximize landowner participation. Further, DOI heavily 

monitored all Tribal activities for outreach with a cumbersome approval process for 

all activities, including travel. Tribes should be allowed the autonomy to conduct 

outreach efforts as they deem effective and appropriate without the burdensome 

oversight of the Cooperative Agreement scheme. This oversight is contrary to promotion of self-determination policies in other contractual agreements between the 

United States and Tribes. 

DOI Land Purchase Infrastructure 

During the last four years, the program has developed methods and processes that 

have proven successful to achieve the objectives of the program, while remaining 

well within the administrative cost limits established in the Cobell Settlement. In 

fact, DOI reports indicate that approximately $285 million of the funds allocated for 

administration remain unexpended. The program has utilized the ‘mass appraisal’ 

process for valuation of Reservation trust lands that has achieved tract values acceptable to individual trust landowners. Further, the program has created an acquisition process that efficiently generates landowner offers directly from the DOI’s national title system and allows for the immediate transfer of title of numerous interests from the individual landowner to the Tribes on one deed. This infrastructure 

has proven cost effective and efficient. The Fort Peck Tribes recommend additional 

funding to allow the Program to continue, without interruption, after expenditure 

of the Cobell funds, to maximize the benefits of the land purchase infrastructure. 

Appraisal Shelf Life 

While DOI developed a cost effective ‘mass appraisal’ process that yielded satisfactory land values for individual landowners, the short shelf-life of the appraisals is 

not reasonable. The DOI appraisals for the Buy-Back program has a shelf-life of 9 

months established by DOI policy. However, standard trust land appraisals, outside 

the Land Buy-Back program, have a standard shelf-life of one year and can be extended if transactions are not complete. Extending the shelf-life of the appraisals 

would allow for several waves of landowner offers without expending additional administrative funds to update such appraisals. 

Appraiser Determination of Purchasable and Non-Purchasable Tracts 

Throughout the last four-year implementation of the Land Buy-Back program, 

Tribes have expressed confusion regarding DOI’s determination of which tracts are 

19 

purchasable and which tracts are deemed non-purchasable. On the Fort Peck Reservation, many landowners complained that their purchase offers omitted tracts 

that they wished to sell. Fort Peck was informed that the contracted appraisers determined which tracts to include as purchasable. Information regarding the criteria 

for purchasable tracts has not been clear. We understand that tracts with structures 

were omitted from offers regardless of whether the structure was a dilapidated outbuilding, barn or remnants of a long-abandoned home. While it makes sense to 

avoid an offer with an inhabited home, it does not make sense to exclude tracts with 

abandoned or unused structures. 

Coordination and consultation with Tribes in the determination of purchasable 

and non-purchasable tracts would allow the Tribe to develop strategies, such as 

mandatory homesite leases for tracts with homes, to maximize the number of tracts 

for purchase. Further, Tribal investigation of tracts would avoid exclusion or omission from purchase offers for uninhabited, abandoned buildings. 

Purchase of Non-fractionated and Fee Tracts 

The Land Buy-Back Program purchased fractionated trust lands which were defined as lands having more than one owner. Across Indian Country, some lands are 

still owned by one owner although these lands have the potential to become 

fractionated upon death of the landowner. The Program should allow for offers to 

purchase lands owned by one owner. Additionally, true land consolidation must include restoration of reservation fee lands to Tribal ownership. Allowing the program 

to purchase available fee lands would enhance consolidation and maximize Tribal 

control and development of reservation lands. 

Education Scholarship Fund 

The Fort Peck Tribes understand the Cobell Settlement scholarship fund, capitalized by matching DOI contributions for land purchases, now has approximately $40 

million. However, the fund has resulted in only $3 million in actual student scholarships awarded. Land acquired on the Fort Peck Reservation resulted in a significant 

contribution to the fund. However, the current framework for management of the 

fund by the Cobell Plaintiffs does not result in any assurance the fund will benefit 

members of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. The Fort 

Tribes recommend revising the management of the scholarship fund to allow Tribal 

participation in the use and award of the scholarship funds. The Fort Peck Tribes, 

along with many Tribes, voiced concerns regarding the scholarship fund management throughout consultation on the Cobell Settlement. The Fort Peck Tribes have 

a significant need for educational funds for the Fort Peck Tribal College, student 

undergraduate and graduate scholarships, and funds to promote Assiniboine and 

Sioux language and culture. I propose developing a process for the Fort Peck Tribes 

to receive a percentage of the scholarship fund commensurate with the contributions 

to the fund from land purchases at Fort Peck. 

Conclusion 

The Land Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations was implemented on the Fort 

Peck Reservation and a significant number of individual Indian owned fractionated 

interests were restored to Tribal ownership. The Fort Peck Tribes assisted with the 

outreach efforts through a Cooperative Agreement with DOI. 

In this vain, the Fort Peck Tribes support the continuation of a DOI managed 

Land Buy Back Program with additional funding beyond the Cobell Settlement 

Funds. However, we think it is critical that the Buy-Back program return to Fort 

Peck, due to the previous erroneous offers that land-owner confusion and limited 

participation. To improve these efforts, I would recommend an increase in funds for 

Tribal outreach efforts as such efforts are critical to maximize landowner participation. 

I would also recommend Tribal participation in the determination of purchasable/ 

non-purchasable tracts and to enhance the program to purchase solely owned tracts 

and fee lands within the exterior boundaries of a reservation. I also recommend an 

increase in the length of shelf-life of appraisals to avoid costly updates to accommodate additional waves of offers on each reservation. 

Finally, I recommend a revision to the Cobell Scholarship Fund management to 

allow Tribal education programs to directly receive a percentage of funds contributed from land purchases on their particular reservations. Such a scheme would insure that funds are utilized for Tribal education priorities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives and concerns. I would 

be happy to answer your questions. 

20 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much for your 

thoughtful testimony. We appreciate you being here. 

Our next witness, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY TATSEY, VICE–CHAIRMAN, 

BLACKFEET NATION 

Mr. TATSEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso and Committee 

members. [Greeting in native language.] How are you doing? 

First of all, I would like to recognize our Pikunii Woman Warrior, Yellow Bird Woman, the late Elouise Cobell. But also at this 

time I would like to recognize an uncle of mine that was lost 75 

years ago at Pearl Harbor, George Tatsey. Our contribution to the 

military amongst Tribal Nations is significant, and I want to recognize that. 

The CHAIRMAN. George Tatsey. Thank you. 

Mr. TATSEY. He lost his life in Pearl Harbor 75 years ago. 

The Blackfeet Reservation is in its post-offer phase. One of the 

concerns that we had to deal with initially was the outreach and 

education component. We felt if a very well pre-planned effort 

would have been conducted, it would educate our landowners, those 

that had the potential to benefit from this. So that was just a concern our people had and our Tribal leadership had. Any time you 

get a large infusion of money into Indian Country that have limited 

experience in dealing with investments or purchases, short- or 

long-term, it is a real high risk. 

One of the bright spots that our Tribe benefited from by being 

the last Tribe in Montana to implement the Program was our Tribal Council and our community took a grassroots initiative to create 

what we call the Pikunii Money Campaign. It wasn’t initially funded in the cooperative agreement; later it was, and that is in the 

height of its outreach and education right now, so a lot of our people are very aggressively educating the potential beneficiaries on 

the financial responsibility and opportunity they have with this 

money. 

So it is a campaign that can be used as a template when other 

Tribes are infused with large money in the future. There is a preand post-assessment that is going to come from this, so it is going 

to be an opportunity to do better things as we move into the future. 

Another challenge that was faced for this Program, although we 

were the last Tribe, is the 45-day window from offer to acceptance 

by the beneficiaries. So if we could take a look at that as we move 

forward and ways to address that and extend that, it is something 

that we feel is very important, and give our people and the programs a better opportunity to make good decisions as they are deciding whether to sell or not to sell their fractionated portions. 

Some of them have large portions of those fractionated interests. 

Moving forward, I think this is something that we really need to 

take a look at. The appraisal process right now has a nine month 

shelf life, and as we move forward the consideration is let’s take 

a look at extending that window, if we extend this program and 

move the program forward with corresponding funding, because 

one of the things that is not going to end is fractionation, unfortunately, of our properties. We are going to get families that are not 

going to provide wills, and so that fractionation, those challenges 

21 

are going to be a part of reality as we move forward in the future; 

not to the magnitude that we are experiencing now, but they are 

still going to be there. So I just wanted to share that with you. 

So when we do appraisals with the current process, another 

thing that we need to consider as we move forward is re-appraisals, 

because minerals are discovered as we assess properties along recreational mountain-front commercial properties, those property values are going to increase, so really reassessing the appraisal process for some of those Tribes and tribal members that felt their 

lands and property were undervalued. So that would be a recommendation as we move forward. 

And probably last, not least, is when we do things with Indian 

Country or Tribal Nations, respectively, let’s not use the cookie cutter template, one size fits all. Tribes are unique. Tribes are different. And we need to deal with them that way and respect them 

that way. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tatsey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY TATSEY, VICE-CHAIRMAN, BLACKFEET NATION

Introduction 

Oki Tsa nii tahpii; (Hello How are You) 

Recognize: Our Pikunii Woman Warrior; Yellow Bird Woman The late Elouise 

Cobell, 

The Land Buy-Back Program, currently in the Post-offer phase on the Blackfeet 

Indian Reservation in Montana. 

1. The initial point of concern is that both the Department and Tribe agree that 

pre-program individual Financial Literacy training and education was critical. 

2. The Department and Tribe recognize that 45 days is a very short time for 

individual offers and implement such an important program. 

3. The recommendation is to continue the current program with corresponding 

funding beyond the agreed upon term, for tribal members that will inherit 

land in the future. 

A. Program Benefits (non-contiguous track appraisal): The Blackfeet Tribe will 

be the last Tribe in Montana to implement in the Buy-Back Program, we 

have benefitted from lessons learned from other respective tribal Nations 

challenges. For example, the Blackfeet Tribe has a substantial amount of 

tracts that are non-contiguous. A notable benefit to the Blackfeet has been 

the appraisal of non-contiguous tracks that were otherwise not being appraised during prior implementation of the Buy-Back Program. 

B. Financial Literacy Education: Another benefit to the Tribe has been the Department’s willingness to change its policy regarding financial literacy education. The Buy-Back Program has created a potential economic benefit to 

our tribal members, on a reservation with a significantly high unemployment 

rate. 

However, poverty is directly correlated with education, or the lack of. Many 

individuals receiving offers, some significant, will lack the financial literacy 

needed to efficiently manage their new fortune, should they accept. When 

drafting the Cooperative Agreement, the Tribe included a line item for voluntary financial literacy training to land owners. The Department denied 

the Tribe’s request. Although the Tribe’s Cooperative Agreement didn’t allow 

a financial education component, the Tribe met with various financial entities in an attempt to provide financial literacy training outside the Cooperative Agreement. The Tribe was successful with partnering with various entities and the ‘‘Pikuni Money’’ campaign was formed, with a mission of providing financial literacy training to eligible land owners. Eventually the 

Tribe was able to negotiate with the Department and an agreement was 

made to amend the Cooperative Agreement which would fund a portion of 

the Pikuni Money campaign as well as extending the length of the CooperaVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
22 

tive Agreement. The Tribe appreciates the Department’s effort in amending 

the Agreement. The Tribe is aware that individuals will receive offers in the 

6–7 figure range. The Tribe is fully briefed on the unfortunate events that 

occurred on other reservations, to similarly situated individuals. The Tribe 

wants to be in a position to better prepare its people for the aftermath of 

the Buy-Back Program. The Tribe is very optimistic that the financial education component of the Cooperative Agreement will greatly benefit the people who participate. 

Potential consequences of the Buy Back Program include: 

Length to Accept Offer: The length of time that an offer has to be accepted. This 

is a once in a life time event throughout Indian Country. Deciding on whether or 

not to sell your land is a major decision. Because the offer monies have already been 

allocated by the Department, and the appraisals valid for nine (9) months, it would 

be in the best interests of the eligible land owners if the offer period could be extended past the 45 days. 

Cooperative Agreement: The Cooperative Agreement, Outreach and Post Outreach 

Process’ need to be revisited. The Buy-Back Program is the first of its kind. Many 

of the components needed to make the Program work, were forged from scratch. The 

Tribe had no road map to follow when creating its Cooperative Agreement. There 

was a lack of cooperation on behalf of the Department to assist the Tribe with creating the Agreement. For example, the Tribe asked for assistance with regards to 

equipment: ‘‘how much paper, pens and other supplies should the Tribe contemplate 

using?’’ The Tribe also requested copies of other Cooperative Agreements from other 

tribes who had already participated in the Program. The Department denied the 

Tribe’s requests. This was unfortunate because the Tribe on its own volition was 

able to reach out to other tribes, and gain valuable insight and information that the 

Tribe was able to incorporated into its Cooperative Agreement. 

Cookie Cutter mentality: The Tribe disagrees with the Department’s ‘‘cookie-cutter’’ mentality towards the Tribe throughout Buy-Back Program. The Department 

based its decisions to allow or not to allow the Tribe to perform certain tasks based 

on what occurred on other reservations during the Buy-Back Program. The Department’s approach is that if something was not successful at tribe A, then it wouldn’t 

be successful at Blackfeet, and vise versa. The Tribe has had to remind the Department that the Blackfeet and each respective tribal nation are different and must 

be treated as such. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Mr. COBELL. 

STATEMENT OF TURK COBELL, TREASURER, COBELL BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES 

Mr. COBELL. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman 

Tester, and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is 

Turk Cobell, and I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf 

of the Cobell Board of Trustees. 

The CBOT was established under the settlement agreement that 

established the Cobell Scholarship Program and resolved the longrunning class action litigation against the Department of Interior 

and other Federal defendants known as Elouise Pepion Cobell v. 

Jewell. The Cobell Settlement was authorized by Congress on December 8, 2010, six years ago tomorrow, and was granted final approval by the Court on November 24, 2012. 

The role of the CBOT under the Cobell Settlement is to serve as 

custodian of the scholarship funds, to govern the Cobell Scholarship Program, and to report periodically to the Secretary of Interior 

and Lead Plaintiffs on scholarship activities. 

As I stated, I am Turk Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation, 

the son of lead plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, and I am an entrepreneur 

and also serve as the Treasurer of the CBOT. Other members of 

the CBOT include Alex Pearl, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of 

23 

Oklahoma, who is an Assistant Professor of Law at Texas Tech 

University School of Law and Chair of the CBOT; Jeani O’Brien, 

a member of the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa 

Tribe, who is a Professor at the University of Minnesota; Pam 

Agoyo, a member of the Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh, Pueblo of 

Cochiti, and Pueblo of Kewa, who is also the Director of American 

Indian Student Services and Special Advisor to the President at 

the University of New Mexico; and Dorothy Nason, a member of 

the Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, who is a 

Professor at the University of British Columbia. I will also mention 

that Elouise Cobell, the principal plaintiff in the litigation and my 

mother that led to creation of the Scholarship Program, was honored two weeks ago by receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

I am pleased to report that the Cobell Scholarship Program is 

now well underway and is working extremely well. In fact, in the 

16 months since CBOT first began authorizing scholarship awards, 

over 2,100 hundred individual Cobell scholarships have been 

awarded to over 1,100 Native American and Alaska Native students. The scholarship awards are $5,000 per semester for undergraduates and $10,000 per semester for graduate and doctoral students. 

The Cobell scholarship awards to date total more $5.25 million, and the CBOT has authorized an additional $500,000 for scholarships for the summer term 2017. Thus, the scholarships authorized 

to date total more than $5.75 million. Moreover, the quality of the 

applicants is remarkable. The combined average GPA for students 

who received scholarships for the current academic year is 3.46. 

There is a huge unmet need for these scholarships in the Native 

American community. Our scholarship administrator, Indigenous 

Education, Inc. received nearly 3,600 scholarship applications for 

the current academic year, but the funds available were only sufficient to provide scholarships to 600 of those students. 

There is some good news, however. The Scholarship Program will 

continue to receive additional funds related to the Land Consolidation Program up to a cap of $60 million. In addition, the CBOT has 

invested the funds received conservatively, principally in index 

funds managed by Vanguard, but the returns to date have been excellent and have provided more funds for scholarships. The availability of additional funding and prudent asset management are 

both critical because CBOT is required to operate the Cobell Scholarship Program as a perpetual fund. 

The CBOT did encounter several initial hurdles in administering 

the Cobell Scholarship Program. The organization originally selected, before the CBOT was formed, to handle applications and to 

administer scholarships resigned before the application process 

even began. The next organization was selected and was overwhelmed by the number of applicants and was not able to handle 

scholarship administration in a timely or satisfactory manner. 

Fortunately, CBOT replaced that organization earlier this year 

with IEI, led by Melvin Monette, who is also testifying today, and 

IEI has done a superb job in administering the Scholarship Program. Moreover, in conjunction with replacing the prior administrator, CBOT and IEI jointly proposed that the administrative fee 

24 

be cut in half, from 6 percent annum to 3 percent annum, and that 

has been done. 

In getting the Cobell Scholarship Program operational and, in 

particular, in working through the changes in administrators, the 

CBOT has had the full support of the Lead Plaintiffs, through their 

counsel, Bill Dorris, of Kilpatrick Townsend, and the Department 

of Interior. At Interior, the single most critical person has been the 

Solicitor, Hilary Tompkins, who has been extraordinarily helpful to 

the Cobell Scholarship Fund at every turn. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my testimony, and I 

would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cobell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TURK COBELL, TREASURER, COBELL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Chairman Barasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, my name is Turk Cobell and I am pleased to appear today on behalf 

of the Cobell Board of Trustees (CBOT). The CBOT was established under the settlement agreement (the Cobell Settlement) that established the Cobell Scholarship 

Program and resolved the long-running class action litigation against the Department of Interior and other federal defendants known as Elouise Pepion Cobell, et 

al. v. Jewell (Cobell Litigation). The Cobell Settlement was authorized by Congress 

on December 8, 2010—six years ago tomorrow—and was granted final approval by 

the Court on November 24, 2012. 

The role of the CBOT under the Cobell Settlement is to serve as custodian of the 

scholarship funds, to govern the Cobell Scholarship Program and to report periodically to the Secretary of Interior and the Lead Plaintiffs on the scholarship activities. As stated, I am Turk Cobell (a member of the Blackfeet Nation), the son of 

the lead plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, and I am an entrepreneur and also serve as the 

Treasurer of the CBOT. Other members of the CBOT include Alex Pearl, a citizen 

of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, who is an Assistant Professor of Law at 

Texas Tech University School of Law and Chair of the CBOT; Jeani O’Brien, a 

member of White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, who is a Professor 

at the University of Minnesota; Pam Agoyo, a member of the Pueblo of Ohkay 

Owingeh, Pueblo of Cochiti, and Pueblo of Kewa, who is the Director of American 

Indian Student Services and Special Advisor to the President at the University of 

New Mexico; and Dorothy ‘‘Dory’’ Nason, a member of the Leech Lake Band of the 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, who is a Professor at the University of British Columbia. I should also mention that Elouise Cobell, the principal plaintiff in the litigation 

that led to creation of the Cobell Scholarship Program, was honored, posthumously, 

two weeks by being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

I am pleased to report that the Cobell Scholarship Program is now well underway 

and is working extremely well. In fact, in the sixteen months since CBOT first 

began authorizing scholarship awards, nearly 1800 hundred individual Cobell scholarships have been awarded to almost 1000 Native American students. The scholarship awards are $5,000 per semester for undergraduates and $10,000 per semester 

for graduate and doctoral students. The Cobell scholarship awards to date total 

more $5.25 million, and the CBOT has authorized an additional $500,000 for scholarships for the Summer Term 2017. Thus, the scholarships authorized to date total 

more than $5.75 million. Moreover, the quality of the applicants is remarkable. The 

combined average GPA for students who received scholarships for the current academic year is 3.46. 

There is a huge unmet need for these scholarships in the Native American community. Our scholarship administrator, Indigenous Education, Inc. (IEI), received 

nearly 3600 scholarship applications for the current academic year, but the funds 

available were only sufficient to provide scholarships to 600 students. There is some 

good news, however. The Scholarship Program will continue to receive additional 

funds related to the Land Consolidation Program up to a cap of $60 million. In addition, the CBOT has invested the funds received conservatively, principally in index 

funds managed by Vanguard, but the returns to date have been excellent and have 

provided more funds for scholarships. The availability of additional funding and prudent asset management are both critical because CBOT is required to operate Cobell 

Scholarship Program as a perpetual fund. 

The CBOT did encounter several initial hurdles in administering the Cobell Scholarship Program. The organization originally selected—before the CBOT was 

25 

formed—to handle applications and to administer scholarships resigned before the 

application process even began. The next organization selected was overwhelmed by 

the number of applications and was not able to handle scholarship administration 

in a timely or satisfactory manner. Fortunately, CBOT replaced that organization 

earlier this year with IEI, led by Melvin Monette-Barajas, who is also testifying 

today, and IEI has done a superb job in administering the Scholarship Program. 

Moreover, in conjunction with replacing the prior administrator, CBOT and IEI 

jointly proposed that the administrative fee be cut in half, from 6 percent per 

annum to 3 percent per annum, and that has been done. 

In getting the Cobell Scholarship Program operational and, in particular, in working through the changes in administrators, the CBOT has had the full support of 

the Lead Plaintiffs, through their counsel Bill Dorris of Kilpatrick Townsend, and 

the Department of Interior. At Interior, the single most critical person has been the 

Solicitor, Hilary Tompkins, who has been extraordinarily helpful to the Cobell 

Scholarship Fund at every turn. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my testimony, and I would be pleased 

to answer any questions that the Committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cobell, for sharing 

your testimony with the Committee. 

Mr. Monette? 

STATEMENT OF MELVIN MONETTE–BARAJAS, PRESIDENT/ 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS EDUCATION, INC. 

Mr. MONETTE. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, members of the Committee. My name is Melvin 

Monette-Barajas, and I am an enrolled member of the Turtle 

Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota and operate 

the Indigenous Education, Incorporated in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

IEI is the approved administrator for the Cobell Scholarship Program authorized by the settlement. Indigenous Education, Inc. welcomes this opportunity to assist the Committee in the oversight of 

this portion of the Cobell settlement. I will quickly summarize my 

written testimony and understand that it will be entered into the 

congressional record. 

As stated, Indigenous Education is a nonprofit scholarship administrator created for the expressed purposes of administering the 

Cobell Scholarship Program following the resignations of two previous organizations. The opportunity to create an organization to 

give the Cobell Scholarship Program a single focus necessary to design the Scholarship Program and services that focus on students, 

Tribes, institutions, and the communities was born through the 

aforementioned resignations. 

The Cobell Board of Trustees has authorized the organization 

and the predecessor to award more than $4.25 million to nearly 

1,000 members of 138 U.S. federally recognized Tribes attending 

316 nonprofit public and private institutions of higher education as 

they seek full-time degrees, vocational education, undergraduate 

education, graduate and professional education. In addition, the 

CBOT has authorized an additional $500,000 for the summer of 

2017, in which the organization will begin accepting applications in 

the early part of 2017. 

As Mr. Cobell stated, we had over 3,000 applicants, almost 3,500 

applicants. Of those applicants, we were able to fund 640 students, 

with a combined average GPA of 3.46. So obviously we are looking 

for and funding highly qualified students, of which all 3,000 were 

highly qualified, making our job extremely difficult, but we were 

26 

able to provide those dollars to those students; and we have a number of testimonies from our students on our Web site. 

The organization also maintains a waiting list of students who 

we were not able to fund, so, as students and their institutions return funds to us, we make sure that the allocated dollars are returned to the community and to those students, and we will continue doing that through the summer of 2017. We want to make 

sure that all the allocated dollars are used, and not sitting in a 

bank somewhere. 

The Scholars group that IEI administered in this fall term, 640 

students attending 249 institutions, are enrolled in 116 U.S. federally-recognized Tribes and studying 35 different major areas. 

The combined scholarship organizations have funded 972 students, 846 of which were undergraduate and 126 of which are graduate students, receiving $3.7 million in total. Another $1.5 million 

staff is currently, as we sit here today, administering for the spring 

term starting in January, as well as another $500,000, as I stated, 

for summer. 

These students claim residence in 41 States, attend 316 institutions in 44 States, and are enrolled in 133 Tribes whose headquarters are in 20 States. Collectively, 208 of these students attend 

24 of the United States’ Tribal colleges and universities which are 

located in 11 States. Six of these students were graduate students 

studying at Tribal colleges and universities, leaving 202 graduate 

students at Tribal colleges and universities. 

I have included in my testimony a short list of scholarships provided by State. The top 10 States are listed there in my written 

testimony, with Montana, as Mr. Tester recognized. One hundred 

eighteen students are residents of the State of Montana, to which 

$462,613 was provided to those students. As you see, it goes down 

by the number of students provided with New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Oklahoma, California, Washington, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin mentioned. As you can also notice, we 

are doing a pretty good job of outreach and coverage to students 

in what is known as Indian Country, and we are very proud of that 

work. 

We are proud of what we have accomplished to date and look forward to continuing the essential work of the Cobell Scholarship 

Program, even after the Land Buy-Back Program has concluded, to 

provide improved educational opportunities for American Indian 

and Alaska Native students, and to enable those students to improve their own communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my testimony, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Monette follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELVIN MONETTE-BARAJAS, PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS EDUCATION, INC. 

Chairman Barasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, my name is Melvin Monette-Barajas, I am an enrolled member of the 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and I am pleased to appear today representing Indigenous Education, Incorporated (the Organization), the approved administrator for the Cobell Scholarship Program authorized by Congress in Elouise 

Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Jewell (the Cobell Settlement). Indigenous Education, Inc. 

27 

welcomes the opportunity to assist this committee in its oversight of the Cobell Settlement. 

Indigenous Education is a nonprofit scholarship administrator created for the express purposes of administering the Cobell Scholarship Program, following the resignation of two previous organizations. The opportunity to create an organization to 

give the Cobell Scholarship Program the single-focus necessary to design a scholarship program that focused on students, tribes, institutions and community was born 

through the aforementioned resignations. Combined, the Organization’s President 

and Executive Director, and the Director of Scholarship Programs have over 50 

years of scholarship and student services experience focused on American Indian 

and Alaska Native students in higher education. The Organization employs five (5) 

full-time, one (1) part-time and two (2) seasonal-temporary employees in Albuquerque, New Mexico where scholarship processes are conducted via Internet, postal 

service and telephone as necessary. To date, The Cobell Board of Ttustees (CBOT) 

has authorized and the Organization and a predecessor have awarded more than 

$5.25 Million to nearly 1,000 members of 138 US federally-recognized tribes attending 316 nonprofit public and private institutions of higher education as full-time and 

degree-seeking students pursuing vocational, undergraduate and graduate/professional degrees. In addition, the CBOT has authorized an additional $500,000 for 

Summer 2017 term and the Organization will begin accepting applications for the 

scholarships within the next few months. 

I am the Executive Director of Indigenous Education, Inc., and I am both honored 

and privileged to manage the Cobell Scholarship Program to carry out the wishes 

of the plaintiffs and the late Elouise Pepion Cobell to provide resources for access 

to higher education for Native people. I bring to the Organization work in institutions of higher education at the Tribal College level, regional and Research 1 institutions, state government (MN) and nonprofit management, as well as board membership as a scholarship advisor to several organizations. As a personal commitment, my advocacy comes from my own experiences, or lack of experiences, with 

funding for higher education. I am proud of the work that Indigenous Education, 

Inc. has accomplished in our first year in existence. 

We understand and appreciate the financial needs associated with higher education for American Indian and Alaska Native students who have waited patiently 

for this scholarship program to be made available to them. We also acknowledge 

that the incentive to sell shares in Trust land to grow the scholarship corpus carries 

with it an unintended expectation that the ‘‘selling’’ individual, family or tribe will 

receive priority for scholarship assistance. To assist in the administration of scholarships, the Organization requests information from applicants that will assist staff 

in identifying these individuals; however, in understanding the financial aid process 

and requiring a minimum eligibility for selection, along with deadlines for quality 

management, not all ‘‘sellers’’ have received or will receive a scholarship without an 

increase in available scholarship funds. We have heard from tribes, families, and 

students and we are addressing their concerns while remaining aligned with industry standards and practices. 

The Cobell Scholarship Program and Indigenous Education, Inc. as the 

Administrator 

Elouise Cobell and a group of advisors advocated for the inclusion of a scholarship 

program to assist Native students to access and complete higher education at every 

level. While it may not have been apparent at the time, we now recognize that the 

Cobell Scholarship Program may serve as the principal perpetual legacy of the Settlement. This carries with it an awesome responsibility to continuously listen to Native students and communities and remain flexible in our administration of the program. 

Having assumed the administration two-thirds of the way through an academic 

year, the Organization was charged with closing the year for first-year funded students, providing summer term funds to returning and new students, opening a new 

application and process for year two (2) of the program, designing all materials, and 

distributing all associated outreach and documents. It was the epitome of the proverbial ‘‘hit the ground running’’ for the organization. At this time, we are completing a review and revision of all processes associated with the scholarship program and in the coming days, will be launching the application process for year 

three (3) of the Cobell Scholarship Program—the Summer 2017 term and the 2017– 

2018 Academic Year. 

In performing its functions, Indigenous Education, Inc. operates at the direction 

of its Board of Directors—Melvin E Monette-Barajas (Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa Indians), Kelly Fayard (Poarch Creek Band of Indians), Clint Carroll 

(Cherokee Nation) and under the direction and oversight of the Cobell Board of 

28 

Trustees. The Organization contracts with Academic Works, the leader in complete 

scholarship management, in utilizing its platform for applicants and staff. We also 

contract our website development and maintenance, technology support as needed, 

and all accounting services. 

Indigenous Education, Inc. and the Cobell Scholarship Program 

Description 

The Cobell Board of Trustees sets the minimum eligibility criteria. The eligibility 

criteria are noted below. 

To be considered eligible for the Cobell Scholarship Program, Applicants must be: 

• Attending or planning to attend a non-profit public or private institution of 

higher education that is nationally, regionally and industry accredited; and, 

• Able to submit a completed application of self-reported information by the annual stated deadline; and, 

• Able to demonstrate academic excellence through submission of a current unofficial transcript and through submission of an Academic Reference; and, 

• Able to demonstrate engagement in community as demonstrated through submission of a Community Reference; and, 

• Seeking to obtain one of the following: 

—Vocational diploma, certification, certificate or AAS degree; or, 

—Undergraduate AA, AS, BA, BS or Post-baccalaureate degree; or, 

—Master’s, Doctoral or Professional degree. 

—Post-doctoral work is considered on an individual basis. 

Finalists are selected from a pool of all completed applications by external reviewers and upon selection must be able to demonstrate that they are indeed: 

• A degree-seeking students attending a non-profit public or private institution; 

and, 

• Enrolled full-time in academic study through submission of a course registration; and, 

• Able to demonstrate financial need by subtracting all known/existing resources 

from the full cost of attendance with an end result in a positive ‘‘unmet need’’ 

per the institution’s office of financial aid submission of a Financial Need Analysis; and, 

• Able to demonstrate US federally-recognized tribal enrollment through the 

tribe’s Office of Tribal Enrollment submission of a Tribal Enrollment 

Verification. 

Awarded scholars are those students who meet all stated deadlines for the postFinalist status. This group of ‘‘Scholars’’ and ‘‘Fellows’’ will receive multiple distributions throughout the regular academic year depending on the institution’s academic 

calendar. Several of these students are considered ‘‘Honorary’’ because the meet all 

eligibility and deadlines but have no demonstrated need. Honorary Scholars remain 

on distribution lists, receive all program updates and can access any student service 

provided by the organization and funds can be made available to them if their financial situation changes. 

Indigenous Education, Inc. and the AY 16/17 Award Data 

For the Inaugural Summer Scholarship Program 2016 term, 138 offers were made 

with 37 of those returning scholars from the 2015–2016 academic year. Recognizing 

the requirement for 80 percent of the available scholarship funds to be awarded to 

undergraduate students and the remaining 20 percent to graduate students, 101 undergraduates were awarded and 37 graduate students were awarded totaling 

$366,318. The Organization funded students with an overall grade point average 

(GPA) of 3.16 for the Summer term. 

29 

The Organization’s first regular academic year process is 2016/2017 with Summer 

2017 yet to be administered. Applicants were required to submit an online General 

Application (demographic information), a Tribal Enrollment Form and a Financial 

Need Analysis to have a complete package on file. The latter two forms will be requested only from Finalists in the future. All information to complete an application 

package will be self-reported in the future with only Finalists requiring verification. 

The Organization received 5540 visitors to the OASIS system of which 582 students were funded. These 582 scholars had a positive unmet need reported by their 

office of financial aid. Another 58 students are considered ‘‘Honorary Scholars’’ due 

to no or negative unmet need reported by the financial aid office, and are invited 

to participate in all scholarship recipient programs. This group of 640 Scholars has 

a combined average GPA of 3.833 as noted on the following page. 

The Organization maintains waiting lists of students who were fully eligible but 

where all available funds had been exhausted these students can receive awards 

from returned funds, if any become available. 

The Scholars group of 640 students attend 249 institutions, are enrolled in 116 

US federally-recognized tribes and study in 35 different major areas. The selected 

scholars are a diverse group. 

Combined Scholarship Data 

To date, the Cobell Scholarship Program has provided funded 972 students—846 

undergraduate and 126 graduate students. They have received $3,719,667.58 in 

scholarship awards and another $1,532,748.42 is allocated for Winter quarter and 

Spring terms and $500,000 has been authorized for Summer 2017 totaling $5.75 

million in scholarship allocations. These students claim residence in 41 states, attend 316 institutions in 44 states and England (IE will fund students attending forVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK

1207a1.eps 1207a2.eps
30 

eign institutions so long as they meet all other criteria), and are enrolled in 133 

tribes in 20 states. Collectively, 208 students attend(ed) 24 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 11 states; 6 are/were Graduate students, leaving 202 Undergraduate 

students. 

The number of scholars receiving funding through Fall 2016 by state of residency 

for the top ten states includes: 

State of Residency Graduate Student Count Graduate Student Awards Undergrad 

Student Count Undergrad Student Awards Total Student Count Total Student 

Awards 

Conclusion 

We are proud of what we have accomplished to date and look forward to continuing the essential work of the Cobell Scholarship Program even after the Land 

Buyback Program has concluded to provide improved educational opportunities for 

American Indian and Alaska Native students and to enable those students to then 

improve their own communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my testimony, and I would be happy 

to answer questions from the Committee. 


1207a3.eps 1207a4.eps
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Monette. We appreciate your taking time with the Committee today. 

Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Azure, the Land Buy-Back Program has already been 

implemented on the Fort Peck Reservation as a result of the consolidation, I believe, of about 40 percent of the Reservation’s purchasable fractional interests. How has your community benefitted 

economically from the Program? 

Mr. AZURE. Basically, the Tribes have leased out the majority of 

the land that we did get from the buy-back, and it generated almost $1 million worth of revenue to the Tribes. 

Senator DAINES. How much revenue was that? 

Mr. AZURE. Almost $1 million of revenue to the Tribes, which we 

utilized for social services programs within the Tribes. 

Senator DAINES. Vice Chairman Tatsey, could you share how you 

expect the Blackfeet will also benefit economically from having a 

program implemented and having the fractional interests consolidated? 

Mr. TATSEY. Well, the potential for purchase for our Reservation 

is over 600,000 acres. Of that, we don’t know what the real acquisition is going to be; we are anticipating 40 to 50 percent. But based 

on those numbers, we anticipate it is going to be over $1 million 

of revenue generated for our Tribe to support some of our social, 

educational, and economic needs. A benefit to us as the Tribe looks 

at some of the long-term planning and land use planning for our 

Tribe, the Tribal governance will have opportunity to do some good 

long-term land use planning once we have ownership and have 

some say in what can go on with those properties. 

Senator DAINES. Vice Chairman Tatsey, I stepped out because I 

went to a press conference that we did as part of the Senate Opportunity Coalition to address the issue of poverty. In fact, I cited unemployment rates on the Blackfeet Reservation as an example of 

the challenges we face in Montana which lead to poverty. The numbers were staggering. Unemployment rates in excess of 50 percent 

on the Blackfeet Reservation. 

Mr. TATSEY. Yes. That is the conservative number. When we are 

looking at this time of the year, when seasonal employment is not 

available, we are talking 70 percent. 

Senator DAINES. Seventy percent. 

Mr. TATSEY. Yes. And that could vary, but when we get towards 

the wintertime of the year and seasonal employment slows down, 

it can get that high, but average around 50 percent. 

Senator DAINES. I think that needs to be continued to be talked 

about. 

Mr. TATSEY. Yes, it does. 

Senator DAINES. In fact, Senator Scott, who is leading the Coalition, he reiterated these numbers. Sometimes we think poverty is 

related to one part of the Country or perhaps in the inner cities, 

and it is right in the heart of a State like Montana. 

Chairman Azure, I would like to get some perspective from you 

around what aspects of the Program you believe are in need of improvement, what we could do here to improve or to change, make 

them better. Here you have a chance to share your on-the-ground 

32 

experience with this Committee, and we would appreciate your 

thoughts. 

Mr. AZURE. One of my main concerns is if we are going to do 

land buy-back for the Reservations, I think we should be allowed 

to buy back fee land, which is wide open out there; and there is 

a lot of it on my Reservation. My Reservation is pretty much checkerboard, it is 50–50 with trust land and fee land. 

Another thing I would like to see is I would like to see the Land 

Buy-Back extended on our Reservation because we have numerous 

tracts that are still open that are fractionated and we have numerous people coming in, after the fact, trying to come in and sell their 

land to us; and what happened is the majority of them got their 

letters and everything, but they were wrong when they first sent 

them in. The information that they gave us that we had to give to 

them was wrong, so they basically kind of held back because they 

thought they were getting ripped off. So then after everybody started getting their money, they put their application and it was denied because it was a late date, it was after the fact. I think that 

would be greatly improved. 

And also for the appraisals, nine-month life on the appraisals, if 

we can extend the life of the appraisals like they do in the real 

world, I think that we would be better off. I think if we would basically get us treated basically like the real world in this, it would 

help us quite a bit. 

Senator DAINES. I thank you for those specific pieces of feedback. 

Vice Chairman Tatsey, in the remaining time I have, which is 

not much, you were nodding your head in agreement. Any other 

thoughts you have as well? 

Mr. TATSEY. Just want to reiterate what Chairman Azure has 

stated; it is something that we discussed and Chairman Azure covered them very well. So I just want to expound on what he said. 

It is basically as we move forward, we are going to be dealing with 

the situations. Being last to implement the Program has been a 

benefit to us, but still we see the challenges of outreach and contacts and proper applications and all those types of things that 

probably were a big challenge for, I am sure, some of the initial 

Tribes that implemented the Program. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to thank Mike Connor for his service. When I first 

came here, Mike was working for Senator Bingaman and doing a 

fine job with him, and applied for the job you have now, and I supported you in that effort and I have not been sorry one day. You 

have been incredible in the position. I serve on Appropriations and 

I am upset about the fact that we don’t have the ability to do 

projects or the appropriations process to direct dollars, but I will 

tell you that you are one of the people that gets out and you get 

to see the projects, and you make good recommendations even 

though you are in the Executive Branch. So we thank you for that. 

I have a few questions now, Mike. The first one is there has been about $900 million thus far sent out to individual landowners. That 

is money that is sent out to individual landowners. Do you have 

33 

any dollar figure on admin costs to get that money out? And if you 

do, could you tell me how much went to the Department of Interior 

and how much went to Tribes? 

Mr. CONNOR. I don’t have that figure broken out, the administrative costs between the Tribes and the Department itself. I can tell 

you I alluded to the fact in my opening statement, but we can get 

you that information for the record. 

Senator TESTER. That would be good if you could. I would just 

like to know. 

Mr. CONNOR. Can I just say, we are 22 percent of the administra- tive costs. The legislation allowed for $285 million to be used for 

administrative costs. We have expended 22 percent of that, notwithstanding the fact that we are 40 percent into the timeframe for 

the Program and we have expended 60 percent of the money for acquisition purposes. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, so you have expended 60 percent of the 

money that is allocated for the Program, so you have a little, well, 

a fair amount less than $900 million that is going to go out, and 

then the Program is done? 

Mr. CONNOR. We anticipate the Program is going to be done by 

the timeframe contemplated in the legislation 2022, which is remarkable that I can sit there and say that with that confidence 

right now because two years ago, when I testified before this Committee, one of the concerns was could we run the program in an 

efficient enough way to ensure that we didn’t return any money to 

the Treasury. We are not going to return any money to the Treasury, and we will expend it by the timeframe set in 2022. 

That is why we have taken the opportunity in our latest status 

report to start looking beyond what is left to do, what are the ongoing problems associated with fractionation; what is the magnitude 

of the problem. We have a lot more information now than we did 

in 2009, when the legislation was being developed, and we know 

the magnitude of the remaining problem and the need to continue 

on with a program such as we’ve got in place right now if we are 

going to make long-term meaningful progress and create opportunities for Tribes from an economic development, cultural protection, 

essential services program. 

Senator TESTER. So going to what Chairman Azure asked for an 

extension of the Program, do you see that as being possible, then? 

Mr. CONNOR. It will take action by Congress. What we have tried 

to do with respect to - there is certainly going to be a need if we 

are going to, because otherwise the great progress that we have 

made over the course of the last four years, as demonstrated by the 

charts that were up earlier. 

Senator TESTER. But you will not have the capability to extend 

it, it will have to be done by Congress? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is correct. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. What about extending the life of appraisals, is that something you could do? Because that is a fairly good 

point. 

Mr. CONNOR. It is, but one of the overarching goals is to ensure 

that we acquire these interests at fair market value. So that is the 

reason for the nine month timeframe. We have, and I think we 

need to continue to have a dialogue with respect to Indian Country 

34 

to ensure that at the end of that nine months, if there are still outstanding offers, we don’t immediately start back from ground zero; 

we can look at the market conditions, we can make judgments 

about whether there is ongoing validity to those appraisals, without going back and starting anew. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. I am going to bounce it around a little 

bit; I am going to go to the other end of the table and either Turk 

or Mel, either one of you guys can answer these questions. 

This Scholarship Program is going to be an ongoing scholarship 

program, so you are going to be working off of interests, correct? 

Mr. COBELL. I think that is correct, Senator, yes. 

Senator TESTER. And is that what you are doing now? 

Mr. COBELL. Yes. We are doing that and a little more. What is 

a little unique about the existing scholarship program and format 

is that we receive quarterly deposits via the Land Buy-Back Program, and those deposits or transfers vary from $100,000 to billions of dollars. At this point, typically you would look at the returns you are getting from your fund and then use those returns 

within a point or two and distribute those to scholarships. What is 

difficult for us now is to try and estimate what that return is going 

to be because our deposits are so sporadic. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. And is it the administrator’s job to invest the dollars? 

Mr. COBELL. No, that is the Cobell Board of Trustees, as the custodian of the funds, to invest those dollars. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And are there any colleges that are off 

limits? Now let me give you an example. You have two-year 

schools, you have four-year schools, you have some for-profits that 

people have some problems with. Is it open to everything? 

Mr. MONETTE. For-profit institutions are not eligible to receive 

our funds. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And we have heard some examples where 

a person will come in with a scholarship and the university will decrease the kind of help that they were giving that student. Are you 

seeing that or is that just a rumor? If you are, is there anything 

you can do about it? 

Mr. MONETTE. It does happen. Unfortunately, we follow Federal 

student aid guidelines, so a student receives a full cost of attendance and then our check shows up, they either need to return a 

portion or all of it to us because of Federal student aid guidelines. 

One of the things we cannot do is replace the expected family contribution. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. MONETTE. So that tends to be the largest problem we see 

with our students, is that EFC. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, sounds good. Well, thank you. 

I am going to go over to Floyd here for a second. Can you tell 

me what outreach programs work the best for you in Fort Peck and 

could they be improved upon to let people know? 

Mr. AZURE. Basically, I haven’t seen any outreach programs, but 

in talking to Mr. Monette and Mr. Cobell, they said that there are 

29 students from the Reservation that got that money. The ones I 

know of got a 638 contract, educational contract that we provide 

scholarships for our students, and we have 42 of those students 

35 

still left on my Reservation without a scholarship. They are on a 

waiting list because we expended all of our 638 dollars already. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Now I am talking about the Land BuyBack Program as far as outreach. 

Mr. AZURE. Land Buy-Back, that was on a previous administration. 

Senator TESTER. No, that is okay. I just wondered are there outreach program that you know of that have worked well. 

Mr. AZURE. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. And maybe ones that haven’t worked so well? 

Mr. AZURE. I think we pretty much replaced the ones that didn’t 

work so well, but that was after the fact. 

Senator TESTER. So you are happy with what you have going 

now? 

Mr. AZURE. We are working very well, but the first go-round everybody kind of got skeptical of what was going on and they pulled 

back from their land sales. 

Senator TESTER. All right. 

Mr. AZURE. After we corrected it we got a lot of people who have 

come back, but there is a lot of them that didn’t. 

Senator TESTER. Do you see an opportunity for more Tribal consultation with the Department? And, if you do see that, what would 

that look like? 

Mr. AZURE. I think that what we are going to have to do is we 

are going to have to work with the people better, because they are 

very skeptical about what the Federal Government does, and I 

think that we should have some people come in. I would have to 

just go through it by finger and show them. 

Senator TESTER. There is a little history there. 

Terry, you talked about purchase offers should be made available 

beyond 45 days. You get to give your opinion. How long do you 

think they should be out there for? 

Mr. TATSEY. I think one of the guiding principles behind all this 

is just a good outreach and education program to begin with, Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Mr. TATSEY. If you did that like we have done that with the 

Pikunii Money Campaign, you educate people, you let them know 

about opportunity and let them know about the potential things 

that can happen if they retain their property, if they sell their 

property, if that had been initiated, that 45-day window may have 

worked. But because they are doing it in conjunction with offers, 

I would say at least a 60-day window would probably be fairly adequate, but not meet all the needs. 

Senator TESTER. And how was that time decided, that 45? Was 

that a negotiated agreement or was that an agreement that the Department came up with? Mike, can you answer that? 

Mr. CONNOR. The 45-day time period for offers was really set up 

as part of the initial program parameters to ensure that we were 

moving the program effectively and efficiently through the process. 

Senator TESTER. And you get pressure out of this end to make 

sure things move. Did that come out of consultation with the 

Tribes? 

36 

Mr. CONNOR. We had consultations when we initially set up the 

Program. I think that was the rub of us trying to move forward, 

where Tribes were trying to establish some longer timeframes. I 

would say it works better now as we do improved outreaches, we 

have done lessons learned, than it did earlier. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Well, thank you. 

And I just want to close and thank the Chairman for being so 

flexible on the time. I want to thank you all for the work you do 

and I want to wish you all a very happy holiday season. Thank you 

for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Secretary Connor, in 2009 this Committee held an oversight 

hearing on the then recent court agreement regarding the Cobell 

Settlement. As with any settlements, there are high and low dollar 

amounts that are discussed, but at the end of the day these are negotiated agreement between all the parties involved. At the December 2009 hearing, then-Secretary Ken Salazar was here. He praised 

the settlement agreement because it created a program to avoid 

fractionation. Secretary Salazar went on to say that if this settlement agreement is not enacted, he said, then the estimate $4 million land interests would expand to 11 million interest, I think he 

said by the year 2030. 

Now here we are in 2016 with a status report. The Administration is recommending an extension of the Land Buy-Back Program. 

Could you talk a little bit about the Administration’s forecast, why 

it changed on the expanded land interests over those years? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I went back and looked at the hearing record, 

and you are correct, there was the expectation that we could acquire I think it was up to about $2.6 million in aggregate interests. 

At the end of the day, we are going to acquire about $900,000 to 

$1 million aggregate interests. 

I think that is a product of, I think, the cautions that particularly Secretary Hayes provided at that hearing. I think he was upfront that we have done a good estimate to look at acquiring a 

great majority of those tracts that have more than 20 interests involved, but at the same time I think he made clear that we were 

probably in excess of $6 billion to $8 billion if we were realistically 

going to deal with this program, and I think the number is probably higher than that. 

He did note that the caution in looking at these estimates was 

it all depends on fair market value, what the value of those lands 

were, and ultimately the interest of willing sellers to sell that land. 

So those are the products that I think are the difference between 

the original estimate of about $2.6 million interests versus where 

we are going to be at at about $900,000 to $1 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. As you pointed out, one of the conditions of the 

Land Buy-Back Program, you just said, is it is strictly voluntarily. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. It relies on willing sellers who can choose to sell 

some or all or none of their land interests. The data from the Program suggests that about the average acceptance rate of the offers 

made is approximately 44 percent. So should there be a higher acceptance rate in terms of numbers for the Buy-Back Program? And 

37 

why should Congress continue a program that offers solvency rates 

of only less than half? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think overall we have improved. One of the 

aspects, and I will be completely up front with you. We have gone 

through a lot of lessons learned, and the outreach and the information and the education is critical to the process, and it has been 

critical to increasing that participation rate. Now we are up into 

the 40 percentile area. 

I think the idea is that there are a lot of interests to which there 

will not be offers even made. We are thinking about 2 million acres 

overall where they are eligible, but because of our resources available to the Program and the desire to get to all 105 locations that 

we have identified, we will not make offers on about 2 million eligible acres. 

I think, as you have heard today, landowners who initially, because of suspicion, because of concerns about the Program, have 

initially declined offers and I think are rethinking that. So I think 

on those two areas there is reason to believe that, if the Program 

is extended, we can make significant more inroads and replicate 

the success of the Program in its first four years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Monette, in May of this year, in Indian Country Today there 

was an article, you gave an interview regarding the first round of 

Cobell scholarships. We talked a little bit about the scholarships 

today. You indicated your organization was awarding $2 million in 

scholarships for 2016 to 2017 in the academic year. We have heard 

about the incredible demand, the number of students, the high 

GPAs, all those sorts of things that you would be happy to see. 

You also made a suggestion that in addition to accepting applications from enrolled members of U.S. federally recognized Tribes, 

you have been looking into the need of the descendants of enrolled 

members who are not themselves enrolled. Can you explain why 

the applicant pool should be open to non-enrolled Tribal members? 

And has your organization made any recommendations to the 

Cobell Board of Trustees on that suggestion? 

Mr. COBELL. Chairman Barrasso, if I may, I will answer a little 

bit of that. The Cobell Board of Trustees assessed the criteria for 

the administrating organization. Part of that criteria is that the applicant must be a member of a federally recognized Tribe or Alaskan Native corporation. On a yearly basis, even more than that, 

the Board of Trustees steps back and looks at the programs and 

looks at ways at how we can enhance the program. 

One of the things that we heard initially was that the scholarships should only be open to class members or descendants of those 

class members. One of the things that we identified after hearing 

that was using a class member or descendant of a class member 

for a tiebreaker situation, if I may call it that. 

So we are constantly looking at ways to enhance the applicant 

pool, to enhance the efficiency of the scholarship. As of now, the applicants must be a member of a federally recognized Tribe or Alaskan Native. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could I ask you a follow-up? The settlement 

agreement stipulates that your Board is to govern the scholarship 

funds, and I think we have a good report of what you said earlier 

38 

today. Can you elaborate a little bit on this type of Board governance and how your Board interacts with the Tribes, particularly 

those Tribes that are already included in the Cobell program and 

those that have yet to participate? 

Mr. COBELL. Yes. The governance that the Cobell Board of Trustees currently has is one of which the settlement agreement is 

unique in the way that funds are received, and I will start there. 

The funds are received on a quarterly basis, as I mentioned before. 

Those funds, per the settlement agreement, are sent to the administrative organization which in turn has to send those funds to our 

designated investment funds, which in our case now is Vanguard, 

at our direction. 

It is up to the Cobell Board of Trustees to manage those funds 

in terms of investment portfolios. On an academic year basis, we 

do sit down and make a decision of how much of the fund that we 

are going to disburse for scholarships and that we in turn send 

that amount of funds to the administrative organization. 

It is kind of a cumbersome process in that regard, but as far as 

consultations to Tribes the administration organization is really 

plugged into the applicants that are applying in terms of questions, 

in terms of forms, in terms of the overall process, more so than the 

Cobell Board of Trustees. The Cobell Board of Trustees is primarily 

responsible for the fiduciary responsibility of those funds and to ensure that the administrative organization is executing disbursement of those scholarships based on our criteria and based on our 

direction. 

I hope that answers your question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you. 

Senator Lankford? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your leadership in 

this Committee. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Let me give you a real 

world situation and talk about fractionated lands and some of the 

issues. Southwest Oklahoma, I can take you to a town where we 

have highly fractionized land. A home is abandoned; you have windows broken, it becomes a dangerous situation; weeds overgrown or 

a building or an outbuilding becomes an area where there is crime 

in the neighborhood and such. 

Typically, a city would go in and just abandon that property, 

would declare it abandoned and would clear the property. They 

can’t do that in this situation. The Tribes often also feel like they 

can’t do that, and if BIA hesitates, that city, that county and that 

neighborhood has no real solution to something that is becoming a 

magnet for crime. 

That is prime area for this Land Buy-Back. So the question that 

the cities and the counties ask me is how do we get into the process; how do we help in participation; what do we need to do to be 

able to get to the top of the list. So my question is how do you determine what is top of the list, what is the low hanging fruit where 

you have not only voluntary participation, but eager participation 

of cities, counties, Tribes, and communities that say this is a probVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
39 

lem. This is really what the Program was designed for. How do we 

help with that? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator, I am assuming that is directed at me. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOR. I appreciate the question. I think it is a very good 

question and I appreciate the real world example. 

The criteria for how we have looked at which locations that we 

are moving to, which Reservations, was developed in consultation 

with Tribes, and there were a number of parameters: the number 

of fractionated interests, the efficiency with which we can run the 

Program, the interest of the Tribe, the interest of landowners, and 

a number of factors along those lines. 

The Oklahoma situation, the Oklahoma Tribes are now on our 

list of 105, so we intend to move towards those locations. 

Senator LANKFORD. All of the Tribes or just Oklahoma in general? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think it is the five Tribes. 

Senator LANKFORD. We have 39. 

Mr. CONNOR. The ones I am talking about, Choctaw, Chickasaw, 

Seminole, Cherokee, and I am missing one. 

Senator LANKFORD. Muskogee Creek? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. So there is a 1947 Act, there are special 

rules. We are trying to methodically work through how we run this 

Program on those lands. The recordkeeping is different on those 

lands; the fact that we need to go through a judicial proceeding to 

change title on those lands. All these things we are methodically 

moving forward. We need to stay in close contact with your office 

as we work through these issues to try and work through how we 

efficiently run this Program, and we may need some help, quite 

frankly. 

Senator LANKFORD. Which I am glad to. If we can pause there, 

because that is the Stigler Act, and I want to be able to talk a little 

bit about the five Tribes and some of the issues. 

This particular situation in Southwest Oklahoma is not in that 

area; it is not one of those five civilized Tribes, it is some of the 

other 34 Tribes that we have in the State. I guess my question is 

how do we help in the process. The Tribe wants to be engaged and 

is engaged. How do we help lift people off the list? Because that 

becomes a high interest for the whole community to be able to deal 

with this, and my concern is that we are going to debate about getting onto the list and 2022 is going to come and go. 

Mr. CONNOR. I think on this particular matter if we can work directly with you and understand where this location is, who is involved, and try and see what we can do, Senator, I think that is 

the best opportunity. 

Senator LANKFORD. That would be terrific. 

Then let me switch over to the Stigler Act and the five civilized 

Tribes area, because our understanding, and your team has been 

great with working with my staff and with the staff of Senator 

Inhofe and all of our congressional delegation. What do we need to 

fix legislatively and how quickly do we need to get that language 

in place so that the five Tribes can be engaged and helpful before 

the 2022 deadline? 

40 

Mr. CONNOR. I think those are the issues that are being looked 

at by our legal office, consulting with the Tribes. I can look for a 

status on where we are at to try and get you that information as 

soon as possible. I would assume at this point we would try and 

tee up something with respect to recommendations and analysis for 

you for the start of the next Congress. 

Senator LANKFORD. Okay, so those recommendations are still 

pending. Are there any of those that you can talk through today 

or legislative recommendations to be able to do a fix here, or those 

are things you can get me in writing and work with our staff? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think we are going to have to do that in writing 

and work with your staff. I am not prepared today. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. That is great. No, I understand. We will be 

able to follow up on that quickly in the days ahead because, again, 

time is of the essence in all this. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 

Well, if there are no more questions for today, members may also 

submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing 

record will remain open for two weeks. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their time and their testimony 

today. 

Mr. Tatsey, I certainly want to, once again, thank you for sharing the story of your uncle, George Tatsey, who lost his life 75 

years ago today at Pearl Harbor and made the ultimate sacrifice 

for our Nation. I want to thank you on behalf of the United States 

Senate for the sacrifices of him and others who have additionally 

committed their lives for our freedom. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank my staff for their 

work this Congress. I asked and expected a high work output from 

them based on the number of hearings we had, the bills that we 

reported out, the oversight that we conducted. They certainly met 

my expectations and more. They are an outstanding group of people and I am very proud of them and their efforts that they put 

forth on behalf of the Committee. They are Mike, Rhonda, Brandon, Emily, John, Jacqueline, Natasha, Mike, Hanna, and Brian. 

So I want thank each and every one of you for the remarkably good 

job that you have done. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for holding this oversight hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for coming today. 

As we approach the end of the 114th Congress, I want to take a moment to recognize Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for their leadership of this Committee and their dedication to serving Indian Country. 

The Indian Affairs Committee is not the most high-profile committee. But the 

issues that we work on as members of this Committee are absolutely crucial. 

Almost every week, we hear from tribal leaders from across the country about the 

challenges their communities are facing. When we think about all these challenges, 

it can be frustrating. But knowing that there are people like Chairman Barrasso 

and Vice-Chairman Tester who work hard on behalf of Indian Country gives me 

hope. 

So, thank you Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for your commitment, and for your guidance of this Committee. 

And to our new Chairman and Ranking Member, I look forward to continuing to 

work with you in the next Congress. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GARY BURKE, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

Good afternoon Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the 

Committee, 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 Department of 

Interior’s implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program (LBBP). We view the 

LBBP 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 LBBP has played 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, two years before 

the General Allotment Act became law, Congress passed the Umatilla Allotment Act 

which allotted and diminished our Reservation. The Act diminished the Reservation 

by opening up some 90,000 acres of Reservation land for sale to settlers. The allotment of our Reservation resulted in the loss of approximately one-half of Tribal 

lands within the diminished Reservation to non-Indian ownership due to probate, 

land sales and tax foreclosure. By the 100th anniversary of our Treaty in 1955, we 

had lost one-third of our Reservation due to diminishment and another third to nonIndian 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 LBBP, 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. 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 

42 

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. While the Umatilla Indian Reservation may have been established as 

the exclusive homeland for the CTUIR, we had become minority landowners on our 

own Reservation. 

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 LBBP 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 

LBBP. These prioritized allotments were heavily fractionated, had a large percentage of ownership by Indians enrolled in tribes outside of our own, or otherwise had 

important cultural, natural resource or economic and community development significance. 

The CTUIR was eager to have the LBBP implemented on our Reservation. We 

were one of the first Tribes to execute and implement a Cooperative Agreement with 

the LBBP that defined and funded the work we performed to implement the Program. We believe the implementation of the LBBP under our Cooperative Agreement was a success. 

Under the LBBP implemented on our Reservation in 2014–2015, we fully expended our $12.3 million purchase ceiling to acquire 10,172 equivalent acres on 547 

allotted tracts. These acquisitions increased the Tribal ownership of allotments that 

are critical to economic development, contain important natural resources, cultural 

sites or were unusable because they were so heavily fractionated. 

While the LBBP has been fully implemented on our Reservation, we offer the following comments to the Committee based on our experience in the Program: 

1. The LBBP has not eliminated the problem of fractionated ownership of allotted trust land. As Chairman Barrasso stated in his opening comments at the 

December 7th hearing, the $1.9 billion LBBP ‘‘was not enough’’ to remedy the 

fractionated allotment problem. Chairman Barrasso appropriately cited the 

Interior Department’s recent LBBP Status Report that found that the level 

of fractionation will return to pre-LBBP levels if it is not continued. We urge 

the Committee to support Tribal efforts to fund a continuing program to purchase fractionated interests in allotted trust lands. 

The CTUIR proves that such continued funding is needed. During the course 

of the LBBP implementation on our Reservation, we were only able to purchase interests on 40 percent of the allotments on our Reservation. We have 

much more work to do, and many more willing sellers of allotted trust lands. 

We call upon the Committee to support a permanent reauthorization of the 

program for the acquisition of fractional interests in the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 25 U.S.C. § 2212–2215. 

2. The CTUIR is aware that many tribes have been unable to fully expend their 

purchase ceiling under the LBBP. We have notified Department of Interior 

officials that the CTUIR has the ability to utilize unexpended LBBP funds 

to purchase additional fractionated interests in trust allotments on our Reservation. Our Land Program has been contacted by numerous land owners 

who would be willing sellers of their allotment interests. The Committee 

should insist that the LBBP be transparent in the expenditure of LBBP 

funds on each reservation and on the process that will be used to allocate 

unexpended LBBP funds before the 2022 deadline. 

3. 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, enacted under the 

Indian Land Consolidation Act, 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 LBBP reimburse our 

acquisitions under this Code dating back to the federal court approval of the 

Cobell settlement in November 2012. The LBBP never agreed to this request. 

The CTUIR believes our request should have been granted because these probate acquisitions achieve the objectives of the LBBP by acquiring fractionated 

interest in trust lands and transferring ownership to the Tribe at fair market 

value as determined by the Department of Interior. Unexpended LBBP funds 

referenced in comment 2, above, could be allocated to this reimbursement. 

43 

4. The LBBP needs to provide more information to affected tribes on the rollout of the Program in Indian Country. It would have been helpful for us to 

learn about what had worked, what had underperformed and what had failed 

in the implementation of the LBBP on other reservations. The CTUIR and 

other participating tribes have a shared interest with the LBBP in the success of the Program. All tribes want to learn from, and benefit by, the successes (and the failures) of other tribes participating in the LBBP. 

5. Effective LBBP implementation on a reservation requires good communication with owners of allotments on that reservation. As the CTUIR experience 

proves, many owners of allotments on one reservation live on neighboring 

reservations. The LBBP needs to provide better information on the schedule 

for LBBP implementation on a reservation to surrounding tribes. With this 

information, our Land Program staff can provide better responses to land 

owner questions about the LBBP occurring on neighboring reservations. 

6. The Department of Interior needs to commit the necessary personnel to ensure the timely implementation of the LBBP. We experienced delays in the 

review and approval of our appraisals of the fractionated trust allotments 

that we had prioritized for purchase under the LBBP. These reviews were 

conducted by the Office of Appraisal Services (OAS). The timing of 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. 

The success of the LBBP will do much to improve Tribal sovereignty and economic 

self-sufficiency. With increased Tribal ownership of trust 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 LBBP 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 LBBP 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. 

This completes my testimony. Once again, on behalf of the CTUIR, I appreciate 

the opportunity to provide our perspectives on the LBBP. We look forward to working with the Committee and the LBBP to ensure its success in Indian Country, and 

its continuation beyond the year 2022. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TROY SCOTT WESTON, PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX

TRIBE

Introduction 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is pleased to submit testimony for this important oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘Examining the Department of the Interior’s Land Buy-Back 

Program for Tribal Nations Four Years Later.’’ 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is a part of the Great Sioux Nation. Our rights, the 

United States’ obligations to us and our unique political relationship with the 

United States are set forth in a series of treaties through 1868. Our Pine Ridge Reservation is massive; it encompasses over 2.7 million acres of land in the southwest 

corner of South Dakota. These lands are part of the lands reserved in our treaties 

as our permanent homes and for our absolute and undisturbed use and occupation. 

Unfortunately, violations of our treaties, the imposition of the Allotment policy and 

settlers’ encroachments have damaged the integrity and benefits of our lands which 

we hold sacred. Implementation of the repudiated and unwise Allotment policy 

caused our Reservation lands to become unbelievably fractionated through the generations, and we have suffered from that policy’s long-lasting negative effects. Some 

of our members own just a ‘‘spoonful of land.’’ This land, however, is important to 

them as land is highly valued among our members and is traced back to our treaties 

and before. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe was the first tribe to enter into a cooperative agreement 

with the United States Department of the Interior (Interior or DOI) for the implementation of the Cobell Land Buy-Back Program (LBBP or Program). To date, the 

Program has provided beneficial results for our Pine Ridge Reservation. However, 

much more work is required if we are to truly address the menacing problem of 

fractionated interests on our lands. 

Pine Ridge Reservation and Implementation of the LBBP 

Interior’s Dec. 18, 2012 Initial Implementation Plan for the LBBP listed our Pine 

Ridge Reservation as the most highly fractionated reservation in all of Indian CounVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:38 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 023536 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\23536.TXT JACK
44 

try. It was listed as number one on Interior’s ‘‘Top 40 list.’’ The magnitude of our 

fractionated interest problem is enormous. It hinders our economic development, 

planning, cultural and natural resources preservation and governance. Fractionation 

also hinders our members’ efforts to make their lands useful. 

Faced with such a massive problem, our Tribe has been engaged with purchasing 

fractional interests and land consolidation efforts for decades, long before the LBBP 

was established. Our Tribal Council has a Land Committee and we have long had 

a strong Land Office. Thus, when Interior’s draft LBBP Plan was issued in 2012, 

we took great interest as we had a lot of experience—through the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) and other programs, including the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

loans—in efforts to consolidate lands and stem further fractionation on our Reservation. At that time, we encouraged DOI to use the Tribe’s experience and knowledge 

about its lands and to rely on tribes for how best to successfully implement the BuyBack Program on their reservations. Further, we asserted that tribes should be allowed to design and implement their own plans for reducing land fractionation. We 

also asserted that the LBBP should be implemented pursuant to the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act. Finally, we asserted that the Trust 

Land Consolidation Fund be placed in an interest-bearing account so more monies 

could be generated for land consolidation activities. 

According to Interior’s Initial Implementation Plan for the LBBP in 2012, Pine 

Ridge had 5,982 fractionated tracts with 194,401 purchasable fractional interests 

that represented 1,194,669 acres of land. Again, our Reservation is the most highly 

fractionated as recognized by Interior. Interior’s Initial Implementation Plan set 

forth a ‘‘purchase ceiling’’ of $126 million for purchasing fractionated interests on 

our Reservation. Interior’s Updated Plan dated November 8, 2013 set the purchase 

ceiling for Pine Ridge at $125.4 million. We have consistently stated that the entire 

purchase ceiling amount must be spent on our Reservation. 

We entered into a cooperative agreement with Interior in September 2013. While 

we asserted our desire and capability to carry-out all four phases of Interior’s Plan 

(Outreach; Land Research; Valuation and Acquisition), we, ultimately, participated 

only in the Outreach phase. This phase, however, was critical to whether the Program would succeed. 

Under our first LBBP cooperative agreement, we hired 12 employees, accessed 

necessary program equipment, and carried-out the planned Outreach activities. 

These activities included identifying landowner contact information, developing and 

enhancing communication tools to notify owners about the Program, conducting 

face-to-face meetings, and creating educational tools about the Program. Achievements under our first cooperative agreement included more than 18,000 purchase 

offers being made; more than $81.5 million being paid to selling landowners; and 

the consolidation of the equivalent of 233,000 acres of land for the Tribe. 

We entered a second cooperative agreement with Interior to extend the implementation of the LBBP on our Reservation. This second agreement covered 6 employees 

to conduct the Outreach services to potential sellers and lasted for seven months. 

Interior’s 2016 Status Report showed that for Pine Ridge, in total, 20,622 individuals received purchase offers and 9,319 individuals accepted the offers for a total 

amount of $110,395,928. The amount of fractionated interests that was purchased 

is equivalent to 292,774 acres of Tribal lands. The effort reduced the fractional interests to 120,966. 

A highlighted benefit conveyed by both the Tribe and Interior is that we plan to 

construct several new buildings in our Wakpamni Lake Community on land that 

has been consolidated through the LBBP. These buildings will include office space, 

a conference room, a civic center, a day care, and food distribution storage. Furthermore, we are planning a housing program that is facilitated by our land acquisition 

under the Program. 

We are confident that our Outreach activities were a necessary component for successful implementation of the LBBP on the Pine Ridge Reservation. We believe that 

having tribal members explain the Program and its process to fellow members was 

crucial to the Program realizing beneficial results on our Reservation, especially in 

light of our unique language and cultural considerations. We stand ready to team 

up with Interior and participate in the Program again. 

Implementation Considerations and Needs Going Forward 

We support the Deputy Secretary of the Interior’s testimony to the Committee 

stating that long-term strategies are needed for land consolidation. Land consolidation promotes tribal sovereignty and governance. It also facilitates tribal land use 

and economic development, which is critically needed on our Reservation. We plan 

to continue our on-going efforts to consolidate our land base. One central objective 

45 

is to participate in the LBBP again. We have much more work to do to address the 

issue of, and problems arising from, fractionation on our Reservation. 

From the beginning, we have stated that the purchase ceiling for Pine Ridge must 

be spent on Pine Ridge. Interior identified $125.4 million as a purchase ceiling for 

the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. This evidences Interior’s recognition of our Reservation’s severe fractional interest problem. Interior must do everything in its 

power to expend our purchase ceiling on our Reservation. Funding identified for 

Pine Ridge should not be spent elsewhere. This will take willingness from Interior 

to work closely with us and our members every step of the way, and, fundamentally, 

a commitment to return to our Reservation to continue our cooperative efforts together. At the end of our second cooperative agreement, approximately $ 15.031 million remains in the purchase ceiling. Interior should return to our Reservation to 

spend these monies and enter another cooperative agreement with us so we assist 

in the process. 

There also must be adequate time for the Program to successfully work on the 

Pine Ridge Reservation. Per the Claims Resolution Act, the LBBP is authorized for 

a period of ten years. Our view is that efforts should be ongoing on Pine Ridge 

throughout the Program’s ten-year authorization. Our Land Office consistently receives inquiries from potential sellers about the possibility of the Tribe purchasing 

their interests. Other tribal members may not currently be ready to sell, but they 

might be in the near future. The LBBP should operate in full during the length of 

its lifetime; this should include ongoing implementation on Pine Ridge, the most 

highly fractionated reservation, especially in light of the fact that there is still approximately $15 million left in our purchase ceiling. 

Trust Land Consolidation Fund monies should not be returned to the United 

States Treasury at the end of ten years. The LBBP was agreed to by the Cobell case 

parties as part of the settlement of the Cobell case. The Program is a monumental 

effort to address the severe fractionation of Indian lands and the many problems 

that it creates. The Program should not be limited by a finite time period and ‘‘useit-or-lose-it’’ framework. Tribes and Interior must have the time needed to do everything they can to address the serious fractionation problem. This includes time to 

spend all the Trust Land Consolidation Fund on this effort. It also includes spending all of the monies earmarked for the Program’s administrative costs, which totals 

$265 million. These monies should be spent on administrative costs and purchasing 

interests, and no part of them should be returned to the United States. 

Any Fund monies that remain should not be returned to the United States Treasury at the end of the ten year period. First of all, the LBBP should be extended. 

While benefits have resulted from the LBBP, there is much more work at hand to 

truly address the fractionated interest issue on our Reservation and across Indian 

Country. Thus, any remaining Fund monies should be used in an extension of the 

Program. The Fund was agreed to as part of the Cobell Settlement. Thus, it would 

be tragic to have any of such monies returned to the Federal Government, the party 

responsible for mismanaging the trust accounts and imposing the devastating allotment policy in the first place. Second, the Fund monies should be used to purchase 

fee lands or large tracts within reservations as identified by the tribes as part of 

their overall land consolidation efforts. 

Finally, we agree with the concept of the Scholarship Fund. However, our tribal 

members have not benefited from the Fund to the extent they should in light of the 

Scholarship monies that were generated from our participation in the Program. Our 

view is there should be an effort to distribute such monies to regions in proportion 

to the region’s generation of such monies. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony for the record for this 

important oversight hearing. We are grateful for the Committee’s focus and interest 

in the Buy-Back Program, and look forward to working with it and the Department 

of the Interior as the Program continues and long-term land consolidation strategies 

are developed. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LIANA ONNEN, CHAIRWOMAN, PRAIRIE BAND

POTAWATOMI NATION

The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (the ‘‘Nation’’) is pleased to provide written 

testimony for the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs’ December 7, 

2016 hearing entitled ‘‘Examining the Department of the Interior’s Land Buy-Back 

Program for Tribal Nations, Four Years Later.’’ Our participation in the Department 

of the Interior’s (DOI) Land Buy-Back Program (LBBP) provided substantial support 

46 

to our effort to combat the issue of fractionated land interests on our Reservation. 

However, much more is needed if we are truly going to conquer this vexing problem. 

We set forth information below about how the LBBP worked for us followed by certain recommendations for the Committee to consider. 

To fully understand the importance of the LBBP one must look at how 

fractionated interests in land developed. The General Allotment Act and subsequent 

allotment acts attempted to assimilate Native people by awarding lands held collectively by Tribes to individual Indians, and sold ‘‘surplus’’ lands to non-Indians. Congress soon realized the failure of the Allotment Act and ended it by passage of the 

Indian Reorganization Act. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done. 

Tribes lost enormous amounts of land they previously owned, and individual Indian 

allottees and their heirs soon lost meaningful management authority over their allotted lands due to the onset and continuous growth of fractionated ownership. 

Land tracts with multiple co-owners make it extremely difficult to obtain the required approvals for leases and other uses. As a result, numerous tracts are unoccupied and not used for any purpose. Instead, they sit dormant; their potential not 

being realized. In addition, the resulting checker-board nature of land ownership 

has created challenges for the Nation that impact our sovereignty, self-determination and efforts toward economic development and land use. Fractionated ownership 

also makes it difficult to protect and access sacred and cultural sites. While Congress has attempted to correct the problems arising from allotment, none of its efforts have provided the critical funding sufficient to restore Tribal land bases. 

In 2010, Congress enacted the historic legislation to ratify and confirm the 2009 

Cobell Settlement. The Claims Resolution Act provides a foundation for addressing 

the fractionation of Indian lands that occurred under the policies of allotment and 

assimilation. In the Act, Congress established the Trust Land Consolidation Fund 

to purchase, on behalf of tribes, fractionated interests in trust from willing individual sellers on their reservations at fair market value. The purchased interests 

are transferred to the tribes. The Trust Consolidation Fund totaled $1.9 billion to 

be administered by the DOI through the LBBP. 

As described in the DOI’s November 2014 status report, within our Reservation 

there were approximately 323 fractionated tracts of land, comprising 18,004 acres 

with 9,618 purchasable fractional interests and 2,204 associated unique landowners. 

To address the impacts of the fractionated land base, in December 2014, our Nation 

submitted an application to participate in the LBBP through a cooperative agreement with the DOI. Per the cooperative agreement, we assisted the DOT in purchasing fractionated interests on our Reservation by engaging in (a) preand postoffer outreach; (b)() identifying interested sellers; (d) notifying owners of the opportunity to sell; and (e) identifying addresses and updating owner contact information. 

The DOT capped tribal administrative costs at $148,796.00 for our activities; set 

our land purchase ceiling at $4,352,826.00; and set the offer cut-off date for individual sellers as June 8, 2015. We had the first official event, a public meeting, on 

the Reservation in February 2015. Through the course of participating in the LBBP, 

the Nation: (1) employed three staff, (2) held three public meetings in Kansas, (3) 

held two public meetings in Wisconsin, (4) held an additional total of 18 outreach 

events on the Reservation, and (5) had a total of 265 attendees sign in at these 

events. By final closeout of our cooperative agreement at the end of September 2015, 

1,656 individuals received offers totaling $10,651,031.00 and 682 individuals accepted for a total of $5,157,029.00. This represented 3,299 equivalent acres purchased 

for the Nation through the Program. 

The LBBP provided benefits to our Nation as it reduced the fractionation of undivided interests on our Reservation. We have attached a ‘‘before and after’’ map 

showing the results of the LBBP on our Reservation. The Program was conducted 

with no cost to the Nation. Our administrative costs were reimbursable and the 

funds to purchase the interests were provided by the United States through the 

Trust Land Consolidation Fund. In addition, the LBBP has tripled tribal lease revenues from our trust lands. The Nation’s increased ownership of undivided interests 

in tribal trust lands has increased the Nation’s revenues from $53,508.29 in 2013 

to $166,784.62 in 2016. It is important to realize, however, that the LBBP is limited 

in scope, and that more is necessary to combat our fractionated interest issue. 

The Nation had 323 eligible tracts with a combined 9,618 purchasable 

fractionated interests with an estimated value of $25,202,984. The LBBP, for our 

Reservation, only had offers accepted on 155 tracts. This left 168 eligible tracts, 

more than 50 percent of the fractionated land, with no consolidation through the 

LBBP. While the LBBP helped reduce fractionation, it by no means eliminated it. 

Only one tract was completely purchased by the Nation; thus, eliminating fractionation only on that one tract. To eliminate fractionation on our Reservation, we need 

47 

our participation in the LBBP to be extended, and the United States needs to fully 

commit to land consolidation efforts. 

Based on our experience with the LBBP, we recommend the following: 

• Extend offer deadlines. The six months allowed for landowners to respond was 

not long enough. It took time for potential sellers to become familiar with the 

LBBP and comfortable with the idea of selling their interests. Some of our 

members wanted to sell after the LBBP ended on our Reservation. 

• Provide more resources for Outreach activities. We could have done more outreach for the LBBP if more resources were provided. With more resources, we 

would have been able to make follow-up calls to those who were undecided 

about selling their interests or uninformed about the LBBP or its process. This 

could have facilitated more sales prior to the deadline. 

• Provide resources for other efforts to combat the fractionated interest issue. We 

engaged in other efforts to combat the fractionated interest problem on our Reservation. For example, we conducted a Wills Workshop to help our members 

prepare wills in an effort to reduce future fractionation. Tribal members who 

pass without wills will create the same fractionation problem the LBBP is trying fix. The United States needs to dedicate resources to a variety of efforts 

aimed at reducing fractionation. 

The LBBP has made positive changes for the Nation. However, more work is required. We realize that the LBBP has a statutory end date. All the progress that 

has been achieved must be protected by extending the LBBP beyond its expiration. 

Furthermore, a necessary component to such an extension is adequate funding. Congress should include sufficient funding in the DOI’s budget to allow all interests to 

be purchased from willing sellers. Purchasing some of the undivided interests is 

only a band-aid fix: a delay in the land fractionation problem. Over time we will 

be in the same position with our fractionation if we do not engage in a concerted, 

dedicated effort to eradicate fractionation once and for all. This will take a serious 

commitment to land consolidation. The LBBP must have more time and the sufficient amount of money to fix the problem the Federal Government created through 

its misguided allotment and assimilation policies. 

The Nation thanks you for the opportunity to provide written comments to the 

Senate Committee on the impacts and future needs of the Land Buy-Back Program. 

48 

Æ 


1207a5.eps