U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

89–368 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–354 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR’S LAND BUY–BACK PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairwoman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RHONDA HARJO, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 11, 2013 ...................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

Greene, Hon. Timothy J., Chairman, Makah Tribal Council ............................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Not Afraid, Jr., Hon. Alvin, Treasurer, Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leader 

Council .................................................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Roberts, Hon. Lawrence, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Stafne, Hon. Grant, Councilman, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Reservation .................................................................................................. 19 

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

APPENDIX

Berrey, Hon. John, Chairman, Quapaw Tribe, prepared statement ................... 45 

Coalition of Large Tribes, prepared statement ..................................................... 29 

Fort Belknap Indian Community, prepared statement ........................................ 41 

Oglala Sioux Tribe, prepared statement ................................................................ 34 

Sanders, Helen, Allottee and Jim Harp, Chairman, Allottees Association and 

Affiliated Tribes, Quinault Reservation, joint prepared statement ................. 33 

Written questions submitted for the record .......................................................... 47 

(1) 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR’S LAND BUY–BACK PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:26 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRWOMAN. We will now to go to a second oversight hearing on the implementation of the Department of Interior’s land 

buy-back program. This hearing is to dovetail with our last hearing, which was about the fulfilling of the promise of the Indian Reorganization Act in restoring 90 million acres of land that was lost 

as a result of failed Federal allotment policies and assimilation. 

The Federal allotment policy created a situation where lands 

were allotted to individual Indians and as those lands were passed 

down through generations of families, the number of co-owners in 

a single tract of land grew exponentially. Each individual owner’s 

interest grew smaller and smaller, and now over 90,000 tracts of 

lands in Indian Country and over 10,000 acres have multiple owners. 

These single tracts of land can have tens, hundreds or even thousands of co-owners. This severe fractionation of land has led to the 

land going undeveloped as it is nearly impossible for an owner to 

get consensus with other co-owners on its use in productive ways. 

Since 2006, the Department estimates over 45,000 tracts of 

fractionated land have generated no revenue for their owners. Additionally, the majority of these fractional interests are so small 

that even when the land is developed, the owners are only receiving a few dollars per year. While the Department has had a program under the Indian Consolidation Act to purchase and consolidate these interest programs, it has been woefully underfunded. 

Additionally, many tribes, including the Fort Peck Tribes, have established their own consolidation programs, using their own resources. 

The Cobell Settlement is the latest effort by the Federal Government to resolve the problems of the fractionation and allow tribes 

to make use of those lands. The Department of Interior buy-back 

program was established as part of the historic Cobell v. Salazar 

2 

settlement agreement, which was ratified through Congress on the 

Claims Resolution Act of 2010. This Act created $1.9 billion in 

funds to purchase these fractional interests. This significant investment will bring sufficient resources to these small, fractional interests and reduce the number of owners in any given tract. 

Further, the program calls for giving these interests back to the 

tribe. This will allow money to be used for the benefit of the entire 

community. Moreover, individuals who are willing to sell their fractional interests will be provided fair market value. Thus, the $1.9 

billion of investment is intended to directly benefit individual Indian tribal members and the larger tribe. 

The Department is required to carry out the buy-back program 

and distribute this $1.9 billion within 10 years. That 10-year period 

began on November of 2012, when the Cobell settlement was finally approved by the Federal courts. It has now been one year, 

and so it is prudent to check in on what that development has been 

within the Department and to see how it is progressing. 

The Committee is aware that no purchases have yet been made 

by the program, and the success of the program can be measured 

in many ways, but obviously one metric is how much of the $1.9 

billion has been spent and how many parcels have been purchased. 

To be on track to expend the entire fund the Department would 

have to, on average, do $190 million in purchases over 10 years. 

But we now have lost one year. So understandably, various people 

of tribal communities are concerned and want to hear about how 

the program is going to fulfill its mission in such a short time period. 

This program seems to be a winning solution for everyone: the 

individuals, the tribes, the Federal Government. However, to be 

successful, it needs to make these purchases happen. So today the 

committee hopes to learn how the Department will do that and 

anything else the committee can do to help make sure this legislation has been implemented and this law is successful. 

So I would like to welcome Mr. Roberts, who is the Principal 

Deputy Assistant from Indian Affairs, from the Department of Interior, and ask him for his statement. 

Welcome, Mr. Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, 

Senator Tester. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of Interior’s statement at this oversight hearing on the 

implementation of the buy-back program. 

As the Chairwoman noted, approximately a year ago, the Department established the land buy-back program to work collaboratively with Indian Country with both tribes and individuals to realize this historic opportunity. Congress provided the $1.9 billion to 

purchase individual interests at fair market value from willing sellers. The key to this is that every acre purchased through this program will be held in trust and restricted status directly for tribes. 

It is this important work that the Department feels very strongly 

3 

can only succeed with collaborative involvement of tribal leaders 

and their communities. 

As sales occur, the program will contribute part of the fund, up to $60 million, to the Indian Education Scholarship Fund. We are 

on track to send our first offers to purchase fractional interests by 

the end of 2013. 

So I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the work of 

Deputy Secretary David Hayes. He was a key participant in achieving the settlement. Deputy Secretary Hayes was personally involved in the program until his departure at the end of June of this 

year. And his leadership really helped to steer the framework of 

the program that is based on essentially four pillars. 

The first pillar is collaboration. We know that the success of the 

program really depends on tribal leaders leading the effort. For 

that reason, it is important to work closely with tribal governments 

and for tribal governments to perform outreach efforts and to implement as much of the program as makes sense and is possible, 

given our resources. 

Providing the assistance and outreach and information to individual owners is vitally important to the process. Through the successful leadership of tribal leaders, this program has the opportunity to expand tribal sovereignty by returning lands to tribes and 

essentially undo the harms that were forced on tribal communities 

through the allotment policy. 

Another pillar that is key to the program is transparency, consultation and flexibility. So our aim is to work in as transparent 

a manner as possible, because not only of the importance of the 

program to tribes, but to ensure that the taxpayers know that the 

money is being spent carefully and wisely. 

And so when the Cobell settlement was finalized last year, in November, the following month the Department established a program and released an initial implementation plan. The release of 

the initial implementation plan is important, because rather than 

just going forward with a plan and saying, this is how the Department is going to move forward, we consulted with tribes in January 

and February of 2013 and received comments on the implementation plan. 

We have developed a framework for cooperative agreements 

through assistance of many tribes, including the Coalition of Large 

Tribes, COLT, which played a role in helping us develop the framework for cooperative agreements. We have issued press releases as 

we have moved forward on a number of matters, including the establishment of base payments, the issuance of evaluation plans, our 

revised implementation plan based on the comments that we received from tribes. We have announced our first cooperative agreement last week, and we are on track, as I said, to make purchases 

by the end of this year. 

Efficiency, a third pillar of what we are looking at here, it is our 

goal to maximize the impact of the finite amount of money that we 

have, given the amount of time that we have to do so and the resources that we have been entrusted to address the problem. So 

first, what we need to do is we need to move quickly to each reservation. We have 150 reservations with fractionated interests. 

And we have to move fast. Appraisals are only good for a limited 

4 

amount of time. We have to ensure that the appraisals and the offers go out soon thereafter. 

So we have heard from all tribes that they want us to implement 

the program as broadly as possible. We agree with that. But we 

also have to move quickly. It doesn’t mean that we can spend 10 

years at a single location or five years at a single location. We need 

to move the process through quickly. 

Secondly, we decided to use a creative but sound methods to 

maximize the value of the limited funds, such as mass appraisals 

where appropriate. 

And the last pillar that we have been working under is, essentially, good governance. We have had a strong governing structure 

internally, including an oversight board that is comprised of the 

Solicitor, the Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary Washburn, the 

Office of Special Trustee, and that board reviews all the decisions 

of the program. During these meetings, these occur more than once 

a month, we have had robust conversations and frank discussions 

about what we have learned during consultations and in meetings 

with individual tribes as we are moving forward. 

While the governance process may have caused us to move a little bit more slowly on occasion, given that this is a major program 

with significant decisions, we think that they need to be addressed 

through deliberation. We have been entrusted with the ability to 

spend $1.9 billion. We need to do it quickly but prudently. I think 

that is the sort of balance that we are striking. 

We are getting a good structure in place, and that is acutely important. 

I will conclude by saying what Assistant Secretary Washburn 

has often stated, and that is that tribal leaders are going to really 

decide the success of this program. They are the ones that are 

going to be most persuasive in their communities on how the transfer of that one individual’s interest and land is going to impact 

tribes and have a lasting impact on future generations. 

So we are extremely excited about the opportunity in the program to work with tribes. And I want to thank you for the invitation to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions that you 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT

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

I. Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior’s (Department) statement at this oversight hearing on ‘‘Implementation of the 

Department of the Interior’s Land Buy-Back Program.’’ 

In 2010, Congress enacted historic legislation to ratify and confirm a settlement 

between Plaintiffs and the Administration in the Cobell litigation. The Claims Resolution Act set the framework to help reverse the fractionation of Indian lands that 

was set in motion under repudiated policies of allotment and assimilation. 

Approximately a year ago, the Department established the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations to work collaboratively with Indian country, both tribes and 

individuals, to realize the historic opportunity. Congress provided a $1.9 billion 

Trust Land Consolidation Fund to compensate individuals who willingly choose to 

transfer fractional land interests to tribal nations for fair market value. Every acre 

purchased through this Land Buy-Back Program will be held in trust or restricted 

status for Tribes. This important work can succeed only with the collaborative inVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
5 

volvement of tribal leaders and their communities. As sales occur, the Program will 

contribute part of the Fund (up to $60 million) to the Indian Education Scholarship 

Fund. We are on track to send our first offers to purchase fractional interests by 

the end of 2013. 

Fractionation of land ownership is a prevalent problem on many Indian reservations, locking up resources over many years. Fractionation is depicted in maps of 

Indian country that resemble a complicated jigsaw puzzle. It spurs the maintenance 

of elaborate records for tiny slivers of land interests and affects more than 150 reservations across Indian country where tracts of land often have hundreds, sometimes thousands, of owners. There are 2.9 million purchasable fractional interests 

owned by more than 243,000 individuals. Approximately 90 percent of the purchasable fractional interests are located within 40 reservations. Fractionated properties 

often go unutilized—hampering efforts to alleviate serious issues such as poverty 

and unemployment. The Buy-Back Program is one tool that can help remedy the 

harms inflicted on tribal communities by the repudiated policy of allotment by restoring tribal lands to tribal ownership. 

II. Implementation of the Claims Resolution Act 

The Cobell Settlement was approved with finality on November 24, 2012, following the exhaustion of appeals through the U.S. Supreme Court. Less than a 

month following final approval, the Department of the Interior established the Land 

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

Plan. The Department released an Updated Implementation Plan in November 

2013, which incorporates suggestions and responds to comments received during 

government-to-government consultations conducted from January to March 2013. 

In recognition of the size and importance of the Settlement, Secretary Salazar established the Buy-Back Program in the Office of the Deputy Secretary. The Department also established an Oversight Board, chaired by the Deputy Secretary, to ensure senior level attention, and to facilitate accountability and coordination across 

the Department. Included among the members of the Oversight Board are the Solicitor, the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Special Trustee for American Indians. The Buy-Back Program Manager is responsible for leading and coordinating the efforts of the various offices and 

bureaus with responsibility for assisting in implementing the Program. The Program Manager reports directly to the Deputy Secretary and meets regularly with 

the Oversight Board. 

During the past year, the Department has focused on establishing procedures, 

processes, and the necessary infrastructure to effectively and efficiently implement 

the Buy-Back Program. Interior is fully utilizing the expertise, services, and systems 

within the Department, especially in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office 

of the Special Trustee for American Indians. We are gaining significant efficiencies 

by automating and centralizing the land acquisition processes. Significant outreach, 

mapping and mineral evaluations have been completed or are ongoing at a number 

of locations. The Department utilized the expertise of the Appraisal Foundation, an 

independent-third party authorized by Congress to issue national appraisal standards and appraiser qualifications, to review the planned appraisal methods, and we 

have adopted the recommendations of the Foundation. 

The Department will implement the Program in a flexible manner and continue 

to update its approach to reflect lessons-learned, best practices, and tribal involvement. 

We have made progress over the last year in preparing to implement this unique 

and massive effort. We have discussed much of the progress in past public announcements and calls with tribal leaders. Through this process, we have: 

• Communicated with 50 tribes (28 with jurisdiction over the most fractionated reservations). 

• Met with 9 tribes at or near their reservations. 

• Published an initial implementation plan which has been revised in response to 

consultation with affected tribes. 

• Established capabilities, systems, and relationships to award cooperative agreements. 

• Created and published cooperative agreement guidance and award templates in 

close coordination with tribal leaders and legal representatives. 

• Began to evaluate nine cooperative agreement applications. 

• Awarded a cooperative agreement to the Oglala Sioux Tribe, which has jurisdiction over the Pine Ridge Reservation (one of the most fractionated reservations). 

6 

• Obtained review of the Program’s appraisal methodology by The Appraisal Foundation (TAF). 

• Completed mass appraisal efforts on two reservations, resulting in fair market 

values for thousands of fractioned tracts. 

• Completed direct appraisals for tribal priorities at one reservation 

• Developed capabilities to create, print, mail, and scan landowner purchase offers 

at a substantial scale. 

• Completed parcel mapping for 18 locations. 

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

• Hired 42 full-time employees and gained access to contractor staff for mapping, 

land research, and database support. 

• Expanded our Trust Beneficiary Call Center to answer questions and register ‘‘interested sellers.’’ 

• Engaged in regional consultations and other tribal events, including: Minneapolis 

(January 2013); Rapid City (February 2013); Seattle (February 2013); Coalition 

of Large Tribes (COLT) Meeting (February 2013); Tribal Land Staff Conference, 

3rd Annual (April 2013); Gathering of Nations (GON) Powwow (April 2013); Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) Meeting (May 2013); Landowner 

Trainings at Cheyenne River, Rosebud, and Pine Ridge (May 2013); COLT 

Meeting (June 2013); National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Mid-Year 

Conference (June 2013); Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Meeting (July 2013); 

Tribal/Interior Budget Council (TIBC) Meeting (July 2013); United Tribes Leadership Summit (September 2013); and ATNI Mid-Year Convention (September 

2013). 

We have also established important policies such as purchase ceilings on each reservation to ensure that each affected tribe can benefit from the program and also 

set minimum payments for land and mineral interests. 

We recently published a solicitation to work with tribes with more fractionated 

reservations that is open now through March 14, 2014. Tribes with jurisdiction over 

these reservations are encouraged to submit cooperative agreement applications or 

expressions of interest to participate in the Program. We will continue to review applications on a rolling basis. By using this approach, tribes will help determine the 

timing and sequencing of Program implementation. And the Department will also 

consider other factors, such as degree of ownership overlap, geographic diversity, appraisal complexity, tribal interest and capacity, and cost and time efficiency. 

Tribal leadership and involvement are crucial to the success of the Program. The 

Department hopes to enter into cooperative agreements with many tribes to implement the Program through a federal-tribal partnership, which will promote tribal 

sovereignty, minimize administrative costs, and improve overall Program effectiveness and efficiency. The Department has worked actively with tribes and has incorporated their valuable feedback into Program processes and policies. The Program 

benefits greatly from the open dialogue, questions, and interactions with tribal leaders and landowners. 

Tribal leaders have overwhelmingly expressed the desire that the Department expend the Land Consolidation Fund on as many reservations as possible. Although 

the Land Consolidation Fund is substantial, it is unlikely to have sufficient capital 

to purchase all fractional interest across Indian country. The Department’s Plan 

seeks to bridge the potential gap between the expressed desires of tribal leaders and 

the available funds by establishing flexible purchase ceilings to purchase interests 

at as many locations as possible. Flexible purchase ceilings are intended to achieve 

broad use of the Fund and ensure that it is not expended in only a limited number 

of locations. The Department will minimize administration costs (capped at 15 percent) to maximize the acres consolidated. 

III. Conclusion 

The Claims Resolution Act has provided a unique opportunity for Interior and 

tribes, working together with substantial resources, to solve a long-standing and serious problem. The Program ultimately will strengthen tribal sovereignty by transferring lands to tribes to spur economic development and unlock the potential of 

tribal lands. As we move forward together, we will strive 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 tailoring the implementation to 

meet the unique needs of each Tribal Nation. 

7 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Deputy Assistant Secretary. 

I am going to turn to my colleague. One of the reasons we are 

having this hearing is my colleague and I were traveling in Montana this summer, and he requested that we have this oversight 

hearing. So I am going to let him ask the first set of questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. First of all, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your flexibility. 

Thank you for being here, Lawrence, and for your testimony. Before I get started, I would be remiss if I didn’t welcome, on the next 

panel, the Honorable Alvin Not Afraid, Jr., Treasurer of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Council, and the Honorable Grant Stafne, 

who is a Councilman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. We are 

very honored to have two Native American leaders and a bunch 

more in the audience who are here today. 

Mr. Roberts, who do you have the cooperative agreement with? 

Mr. ROBERTS. The Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

Senator TESTER. And they are where? 

Mr. ROBERTS. South Dakota, Pine Ridge Reservation. And that 

reservation comprises approximately 10 percent of the fractionated 

lands. 

Senator TESTER. How many tribes have you done consultation 

with? 

Mr. ROBERTS. We had three consultations across the Country at 

five different locations in terms of the initial implementation plans. 

So there was a consultation in Rapid City, there was one in Seattle, there were a couple of others, at least one other location. And 

then we have met with approximately 30 to 40 tribes on implementing the individual—— 

Senator TESTER. Individually you have, or who has? 

Mr. ROBERTS. The program manger, John McClanahan, has met 

with those tribes, and his employees. 

Senator TESTER. And they have taken information during the 

consultation process and gotten back to those tribes? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, most of those conversations have been, I 

would say, I guess I wouldn’t say consultation in that it is specific 

to that tribe’s reservation and how we are going to implement the 

program, so it is not the broader consultation policy-wise. Those 

were done with regard to the implementation plan but they have 

held individual meetings to work with tribes to say, okay, what are 

the priorities for this reservation, where do you want us to expend 

dollars. 

Senator TESTER. So if I were to ask you what recommendations 

came out of Fort Belknap, you could tell me? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I couldn’t tell you right here off the top of my 

head. 

Senator TESTER. But you could tell me? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I could go back. I could probably talk with staff 

and provide something to you, yes. 

Senator TESTER. I would love to have that information. I will 

have my staff get hold of you on that. I don’t want to put you with 

a bunch of work, but one of the problems that I am hearing about 

8 

is the fact that there hasn’t been a lot of consultation. I know there 

was one in Billings, because I was at it. It was big, it was broadbased, there was a lot of folks there. And it was a good starting 

point. But then you have to get down and talk to the tribes. That 

is what is really important. You are saying you have done that. 

You have an office in Billings, right, for this explicit purpose? 

Mr. ROBERTS. We have a BIA office in Billings. 

Senator TESTER. It was set up for the land buy-back? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. About 10 folks in it? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I don’t know that there are 10 folks there. 

Senator TESTER. But close to that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Close to that, yes. 

Senator TESTER. What is their outreach plan? Do they have an 

outreach plan? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, and we could provide that to you, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, good, because I am hearing from the 

tribes they are not doing much outreach. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Okay. 

Senator TESTER. Just to let you know that. 

How much of the $1.9 billion does the Department think is going 

to go to administration? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Our goal is to spend less than what Congress identified in the legislation. 

Senator TESTER. How much is that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Three hundred and eighty-five million dollars. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And you had said that the Under Secretary had said that the success of this program is going to be determined by the tribal leaders. I agree, by the way. I think that is 

a fair statement to make. 

I just want to say, there is a real opportunity here to do some 

solid consultation and do some incredibly good communication. It 

has to be done by people that are as good as you are. And visit with 

these tribes and find out what is going on. And let them help you 

set this program up. 

Now, there are certain parameters, for example, you probably 

know, I was in agreement with the tribe on. But as long as you 

communicate where the differences are, I think that is important. 

On the other side of the coin, I think there is information they are 

going to bring to the table that you need to be successful. And in 

the end, I can tell you I have been contacted by almost every tribe 

in Montana, if not, I will say almost, because I can’t say for certain 

every one of them have contacted me, and have said, we want to 

be a part of this process and we want to play a big role in this process. And we think we can do it cheaper administratively. 

Mr. ROBERTS. And that is music to our ears, because that is what 

we are looking at, is how can we implement the program as broadly as possible. So we have heard from tribes, especially those tribes 

that have the top 40 reservations of fractionated interests, basically 

saying, when are you going to get to us. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Last question. I don’t mean to cut you off, 

but I have another hearing and I am already 10 minutes late. 

Right now, if you were going to do an appraisal process on the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana, who would do it? 

9 

Mr. ROBERTS. It would depend on the cooperative agreement. 

What we would do is talk with the tribe and we would see whether 

that was something that they would implement or wanted to implement as part of a cooperative agreement. Otherwise, it would be 

the Office of Special Trustee and the appraisers there. 

Senator TESTER. And you are going to have a cooperative agreement with every tribe, every tribe that has fractionated land? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Every tribe that may want a cooperative agreement. Some tribes may not want a cooperative agreement. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Thank you very much. I apologize to the 

folks who will be on the next panel. I will submit some questions. 

Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. Just to continue 

on this line of questioning, obviously there is an issue of time and 

money here, given the statute allowed for that money to be spent 

over a 10-year period of time, one year that has already elapsed. 

Do you have goals as far as that allocation of resources, even if 

they are just internal goals? So we don’t end up in year nine actually losing the money and having it go back into the Treasury? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, there is a broad goal of spending a least half 

of the fund before 2016, or through 2016, essentially, so that we 

are making progress. So I think at this point we are moving forward, we have our first cooperative agreement. We are moving forward in terms of sending out offers. We hope those offers will be 

accepted by the end of the year. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. What is the range of that settlement? The 

range, value-wise, of that settlement? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Of which settlement? 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The one you were just talking about. 

Mr. ROBERTS. You mean sending out purchase offers? 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROBERTS. With regard to Pine Ridge, I believe that we have 

appraised approximately 3,000 parcels, approximately 3,000 interests we have appraised. So those will be going out. What we have 

done is we have created an automated system where those offers 

will go out to all of the individuals that have interests in those 

fractionated parcels. The Oglala Sioux Tribe will then be conducting outreach with those individuals. They will have a certain 

period of time to decide whether to accept that offer. If the offer 

is accepted and they send that back into the Department, that 

money is then immediately transferred into the Individual Indian 

Account, and then that parcel or that interest is immediately transferred in the tribe’s name. So the acquisition aspect of it is almost 

fully automated. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. My point is, though, that is probably, 

what, certainly not more than several hundred million dollars, 

right, of wrapping up that particular phase? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the purchase ceiling for Pine Ridge is approximately $125 million. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. So my point is, if you are saying somewhere around $2.8 million, $2.9 million you want to have spent by 

2016, and this is the first offer, what happens if individuals aren’t 

willing to sell? What is the process there? 

10 

Mr. ROBERTS. We will have to look at that on sort of a case by 

case basis. Because there may be situations where people are not 

willing to sell for a particular reason and we will need to work 

closely with tribal leadership and the community to see what those 

reasons are. It may be timing, it may be that those individuals 

don’t have good information or it may be that members don’t want 

to sell, and that is completely their choice. If they don’t want to 

sell, then we would have to look at other tribes and other reservations where they may have more interested sellers. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And you are not expecting changes to the law, 

you are not asking us for any help there. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at this point. Because the ink basically dried 

last year, so we have been focusing on trying to ramp up and work 

closely with tribes. We haven’t discussed any changes to the law. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I guess why we are here today is to say we 

are concerned about the shortness of time, and to drill down on 

how much the first year is about establishing the process. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Right. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And what that process really entails versus 

all the complexity there is to appraising, communicating. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Getting offers out, getting offers responded to, 

making the final purchase. The complexity of that seems to be pretty significant. So we are very concerned about the timing and the 

allocation. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I think we will have a better sense of things as we 

move along this year. I think while we have announced our first 

cooperative agreement and we are sending offers out this year, we 

are close with a number of other tribes on cooperative agreements. 

And as we implement it, I think we are going to see where we can 

achieve cost savings and where we can streamline things and 

where there might be hiccups in the road that we hadn’t anticipated. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. So if we were to, if this committee was to 

schedule another oversight hearing, say, at the mid-point next year 

or late spring, May, June timeframe, you would expect that you 

would be telling me about five or six or seven different settlements 

that have occurred? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I would expect at least that we would be moving 

forward with some of the, I would say a handful of reservations 

with the largest fractionation issues. So I would expect that by 

spring or summer of next year, we will have a better sense as to 

how things are unfolding and where we are headed. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Is your philosophy the largest amounts of 

fractionated, or how are you approaching it? 

Mr. ROBERTS. We have heard from tribes through our consultations that it is important to get to as many reservations as possible. And there are 150 of those. So while we have been working 

with the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other tribes, we are also working 

with, for example, the Makah Tribe, which has a very limited number of fractionated interests. It is not within the top 40. So the top 

40 tribes comprise essentially 90 percent of the fractionated interests. 

11 

So we need to focus on those top 40, but that doesn’t mean that 

we are not going to focus on those other tribes that are not the top 

40 tribes. We think there is value in trying to work with all tribes 

to implement the program, so it is not just the top 40 focus. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Then how do you want to look at the metrics? 

Because you could either do it by land or you could do it by number 

of tribes. But if you are saying you really want to focus on those 

top 40, but leave some time and energy to these other instances, 

you would assume that next year you would have to make a significant dent in those 40. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I think a key metric is putting out offers. I think 

that is a key metric to seeing how we are moving in terms of success, how many cooperative agreements we have had and how 

many offers we have put out there to individuals. I think that will 

sort of track to see how we are progressing. That will give some 

input back to us in terms of if those offers aren’t being accepted, 

why is that. 

And it may be, we have heard through tribal consultations that 

there have been some individuals who have said, and I certainly 

don’t blame them for this, but they have basically said I will never 

sell my individual interest. This is the only tie that I have to my 

grandmother or my father or my great grandmother, and I don’t 

care how much money you give to me, I am not getting rid of that 

interest. That is completely respectable. But if that is the case in 

terms of when we go to a different reservation in terms of why that 

community isn’t selling, then we know that we are not going to be 

able to accomplish results there, and we will have to move to other 

reservations. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And again, I think what we are trying to get 

at here today is the complexity of this challenge and not to uncover 

what are those challenges to that complexity. So that again, we 

spend another year and have not moved significantly on that list 

of 40, or the ancillary list, and thereby run out of time and have 

money reverted back. 

Again, I think what we should do is make sure that the agency 

is establishing some metrics, because I think part of our job as an 

oversight entity is to understand what metrics you are using, to 

make sure we are accomplishing this task. So you have put a couple of interesting ideas on the table today, the 2016 number and 

spending half of the resources by then. 

But we will want to definitely assess and cover your measurements that you are establishing, so we can have a more transparent process about this. 

And to my colleague’s point about the communication and cooperation, I don’t know on this particular settlement if it was a 

major factor, but I am sure we are going to hear from the next 

panel that that is a key element when you are dealing with hundreds of individuals, thousands of individuals. Obviously the communication with the tribe itself, is that not a key component? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It is absolutely a key component. Part of these cooperative agreements that we are working on, the reason that it 

takes some time is that we are not using a cookie cutter approach. 

We know that one size does not fit within Indian Country, one size 

does not fit all. There will be broad parameters and there will be 

12 

some things that are relatively standard in each cooperative agreement. But there are other things where a tribe may want to do not 

only outreach, but maybe they want to go into the appraisals and 

maybe they have the capability to do the appraisals cheaper than 

we can. 

So we need to tailor the cooperative agreements to each tribe as 

well. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. So you mean the distinction is not just about 

getting the tribe to help in the communication to members, it is in 

the actual—— 

Mr. ROBERTS. It may be broader than that. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Why can’t it be more cookie cutter? Why can’t 

you say, this is what is working, and encourage other tribes to do 

it, and then give prioritization to those tribes that are actually 

ready and able to help you? Because those are the fastest agreements that you are going to get done. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we want to work with all of the tribal communities where there is the issue. Some tribes may not want to implement the program at all. They may want to say, Department of 

Interior, you go ahead and run it, it is not our job, Congress gave 

it to you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. But in that instance, why would you bother 

sending out the appraiser at that point in time? Why wouldn’t you 

go say, okay, let’s go send appraisers on these programs where 

tribes have already agreed people are anxious to be cooperative? 

You still might run into individuals who don’t want to settle. But 

you are going to come a lot farther along in the process. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I don’t disagree. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And then leave the tough, thorny things, or 

the ones where you are driving 100 percent, leave those to a later 

point in time. 

Mr. ROBERTS. We may do that. But there are issues, I guess, 

with, let’s say there is a tribe within the top five. Let’s say, for example, it was a tribe within the top five that comprised, let’s just 

make something up, like 10 percent of the problem. And they were 

basically saying, Interior, we want you to implement the program. 

I don’t know whether putting off 10 percent of the issue later on 

down the road, we may never get to that. 

So I think what we have heard in our consultations and individual meetings with tribes is somewhere along the lines of what 

the committee has heard, which is tribes are enthusiastic about the 

program. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I am sorry, they are or are not? 

Mr. ROBERTS. They are enthusiastic about the program. And 

tribes are basically saying to the Department, let’s move more 

quickly let’s move fast, we think that this is a great program. And 

what we have done is we have basically said, great, along the lines 

of what you said, Chairwoman, in terms of let’s identify those 

tribes that are most enthusiastic. We have sent out a notice in the 

Federal Register asking for tribes to send in either a letter of interest or a cooperative agreement to signify that they want to be affirmatively within the program. So that is one of the ways that we 

are moving forward as well. 

13 

The CHAIRWOMAN. It just seems to me that that is a key indicator, that relationship. It seems to me what we will hear from the 

next panel, we will see what their thoughts are on that, that that 

is because people have created a, whatever you want to call it, a 

global picture of what they are trying to achieve economically, that 

the tribe has. So they are willing, maybe in certain instances, to 

have a specific mission that might be tied to their location, growth 

pressures, opportunities, resource management, resource acquisition. Things that are, again, a well-established vision. 

And those areas where there isn’t that vision, I would just imagine that you are also going to find lower down in the individual 

ranks probably less information and certainty as well. I would suspect you would run into a lot of uncertainty about whether to sell 

or not to sell. 

I see you are saying, this is a big holding and we want to get 

rid of it. To me, giving priority to those things that we can move 

quickly. So we definitely will have another oversight hearing in a 

year and check in on this. We are almost in this compounded, compounded, compounded situation where the original policy on termination, and then assimilation, compounded by then the process of 

mismanagement of trust resources, compounded by the Cobell settlement, then compounded by opening, now you actually have to 

get it implemented. 

So it is not as if just we are implementing the Cobell settlement. 

We are trying to refocus years of history here onto the right track 

of self-governance and economic opportunity. So we just want, now 

that the settlement is actually here and agreed upon by even the 

courts, that we actually achieve it. I guess we would say that if 

that is the parameter, given the 2010 Act, and we fail to meet it, 

and somehow that money reverted back to the Treasury, it would 

be one more compounding of a bad situation. 

So that is why the expediency and understanding of the metrics, 

and the oversight. So we will look forward to having you back as 

the implementation continues. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

So we will turn to our next panel of witnesses, to also comment 

on the oversight and implementation of the land buy-back program. 

We are joined today by three tribal members: the Honorable Timothy Greene, Chairman of the Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, 

Washington; the Honorable Alvin Not Afraid, Jr., Treasurer of the 

Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, who was recognized by 

my colleague, Senator Tester, and the Honorable Grant Stafne, of 

the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation from 

Montana. 

Welcome to you all. Mr. Greene, I hear congratulations are in 

order for the Makah Tribe football team, on becoming the State 

champs in the 1B division for the second time in three years. Congratulations on that. Thank you for being here, and we will start 

with you. 

14 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. GREENE, CHAIRMAN, 

MAKAH TRIBAL COUNCIL 

Mr. GREENE. Madam Chairwoman, thank you. I am pleased to 

be here today. My name is Timothy J. Greene, I am the Chairman 

for the Makah Tribe. I am pleased to testify before you today on 

our experience with the Department of Interior and the land buyback program. 

I would like to say that fractionated land has been a high priority of many leaderships of the Makah Tribe. So it is something 

that even before this program came about, it is an interest that our 

tribe took in our lands. I can’t commend our realty department 

enough, Dale Denny and her staff of three people that work on 

these issues and keep it on our plate. They have done a marvelous 

job of staying on top of the information and looking forward as they 

were tracking the Cobell settlement and the developments that 

happened through the years leading up to this program. 

In 2010, when we saw that this was coming down the pike, we began a lot of work within the community. We learned of the $1.9 

billion that the Department was making available. We immediately 

began identifying lands within the reservation that were most 

highly fractionated. We did that work with not knowing where we 

would land at that time. We knew that we were a small tribe. We 

only have 7.8 percent of our lands that are allotted. So we are in 

pretty good shape, compared to a lot of other tribes. We have a 

total reservation base of 38,000 acres. So in comparison to some of 

the other testimony I am sure you will hear, we don’t have some 

of the issues and problems that go on in other places. But yet this 

s a priority and has been a priority for our leadership for generations. 

So we sent out 1,158 letters to landowners on our most 

fractionated allotments to inquire if they would be interested in 

selling their fractionated interest in the Land Buy-Back Program. 

The Makah Tribal Council also directed its staff to rate all the allotments they would like to see purchased by the Makah Tribe. The 

Tribe made special outreach efforts by meeting with our senior citizens to obtain their input on land buy-back priorities. 

Tribal officials also met with the Neah Bay High School freshmen class to get their input on which allotments they would like 

to see purchased. Most of the consensus was to purchase land located at Tsooes, often referred to in the local community as Sacred 

Lands. The Makah Tribal Council met with John McClanahan during a consultation meeting in Seattle earlier this year. We found 

out at that meeting that the Land Buy-Back Program was going to 

buy back land with more than one owner. The Tribe began assembling the land information of the less-fractionated allotments ready 

for the Land Buy-Back Program. Then we prioritized these allotments for timber, economic development, cultural sites and highly 

fractionated parcels. 

We sent a letter and backup documentation to Mr. McClanahan 

and requested to be one of the pilot reservations for the Land BuyBack Program. At this time, we have 14 allotments appraised and 

ready for the Land Buy-Back Program. This week, we will be having the first Land Buy-Back Program outreach meetings held at 

Neah Bay on the Makah Reservation and at the Muckleshoot ResVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
15 

ervation. That is where our realty director, Dale Denny, is doing 

that as we speak. That is why she is not here with me today. Otherwise she would be here. 

The Makah Tribe continues to prepare for more allotments to be 

appraised for the Land Buy-Back Program. The Makah Tribe is receiving $2.55 million and the first 14 allotments were appraised at 

$1.5 million. The Makah Tribe has prioritized 12 to 13 more allotments that we will be including for the Land Buy-Back Program. 

We are very appreciative for the Department of Interior’s Land 

Buy-Back Program. Our experience thus far with this new program 

is that it has been operating smoothly with little complications for 

us. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am pleased to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. GREENE, CHAIRMAN, MAKAH TRIBAL

COUNCIL

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, I am Timothy J. Greene, 

the Chairman of the Makah Tribal Council of Neah Bay, Washington. I am pleased 

to testify before you today on the experience of the Makah Tribe with the Interior 

Department’s Land Buy-Back program. 

The Makah Tribe learned in 2011 that the Interior Department was making $1.9 

billion in funding available for a Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Makah Tribe 

immediately began identifying the most highly-fractionated land on the Makah Reservation. 

The Tribe sent out 1,158 letters to landowners on our most fractionated allotments to inquire if they would be interested in selling their fractionated interest in 

the Land Buy-Back Program. The Makah Tribal Council also directed its staff to 

rate all the allotments they would like to see purchased by the Makah Tribe. The 

Tribe made special outreach efforts by meeting with our senior citizens to obtain 

their input on land buy-back priorities. Tribal officials also met with the Neah Bay 

High School freshmen class to get their input on which allotments they would like 

to see purchased. Most of the consensus was to purchase land located at Tsooes, 

often referred to as Sacred Lands. 

The Makah Tribal Council met with John H. McClanahan during a consultation 

meeting in Seattle, Washington earlier this year. We found out at that meeting that 

the Land Buy-Back Program was going to buy back land with more than one owner. 

The Tribe began assembling the land information of the less-fractionated allotments 

ready for the Land Buy-Back Program. The Tribe prioritized the allotments for timber, economic development, sacred lands and highly fractionated parcels. We sent 

a letter and backup documentation to Mr. McClanahan and requested to be one of 

the pilot reservations for the Land Buy-Back Program. 

At this time, we have 14 allotments appraised and ready for the Land Buy-Back 

Program. This week, we will be having the first Land Buy-Back Program Outreach 

meetings held at Neah Bay on the Makah Reservation and at the Muckleshoot Reservation administrative building. 

The Makah Tribe continues to prepare for more allotments to be appraised for the 

Land Buy-Back Program. The Makah Tribe is receiving $2.55 million and the first 

14 allotments were appraised at $1.5 million. The Makah Tribe has prioritized 12– 

13 more allotments that we will be including for the Land Buy-Back Program. 

The Makah Tribe is very appreciative for the Department of Interior’s Land BuyBack Program. Our experience thus far with this new program is that it has been 

operating smoothly with little complications. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you might have. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Chairman Greene. 

Mr. Chairman Not Afraid, Jr., thank you for being here. 

16 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALVIN NOT AFRAID, JR., TREASURER, 

MONTANA–WYOMING TRIBAL LEADER COUNCIL 

Mr. NOT AFRAID. Thank you, Chair. I will try and be as brief as 

possible. 

Again, the Chairman of the Crow Tribe, as well as the Chairman 

of the Fort Washakee Indian Reservation send their apologies for 

not coming to testify. They had emergencies, I believe it was family, but they send their apologies for not making it. 

To begin with, tribes may never see an opportunity like this one 

to address the fractionated land problem, the damage done to the 

Tribes with the Dawes Act of 1887 that created this situation in 

the first place, as we are all aware. Tribes have become more professional and also competent land managers, but often lack the financial resources necessary to buy back lands lost to fee patent 

status and fractionated interests. 

Tribes at the local level are best suited to obtain long-term solutions to these consolidated issues. But the current plan by the DOI 

will simply make it a take it or leave it offer and move on to the 

next possible purchase. This will leave the problem unsolved and 

leave untold numbers of places where some or all of the respective 

individual Indian account holders refuse to sell by accepting DOI’s 

one-time offer in the mail. 

If the settlement funds are invested at the reservation level and 

tribal land management capacity is increased, the result would be 

that jobs and economic development at the reservation where it 

most urgently is needed with longer term benefits for all the tribes, 

rather than the mere $75 or more for each interest. For some, it 

is virtually nothing. As a tribe, we should not squander this opportunity. Congress should intervene and not allow the Department of 

Interior to spend $1.9 billion in 10 years. The tribes’ land management and acquisition capacity should instead be bolstered. Tribes 

could be put in a position to be making money and not just spending it by acquisition. 

I didn’t come before you to come up with complaints. I come before you to say that the tribes can handle this, we have solutions. 

Tribal land management capacities can and should be increased. 

Proportional shares of the settlement funds should be provided to 

tribes to manage the funds, and should be earning interest as soon 

as possible. 

Tribes should be afforded the capacity to succeed in their efforts 

to buy their lands back, and every obstacle should be removed, 

whether it be by promulgating or creating policy to expedite this 

endeavor. Tribes should be provided access to TAMS, which is the 

Interior’s current record software, being that if we were doing outreach we should have access to that data base. If we don’t have access to that date base, how do we know the landowners, other than 

someone coming in and saying, hey, I got this letter in the mail, 

we would like to sell our land. 

The burdensome and complex cooperative agreement mechanism 

should be replaced with something such as a 638, although we understand that the ruling does not call for a 638, the agreements can 

be mirrored as such to promote self-determination, to promote accountability and transparency. 

17 

In closing, why not give the tribes the money and audit the hell 

out of us? I seriously believe that is the avenue to take, because 

the tribes could do it a lot cheaper, and at the same time, the outcome we can produce. Earlier you stated we do need to create laws 

and so forth. I believe you are right, because how can we implement a plan when there is no bylaws, policies and so forth governing how we are going to do this. 

A prime example whether on pro or con against the Obamacare, 

look at these initial stages, where that is going. That is an image 

that we can take into account for circumventing the problems that 

are happening with this buy-back program. It is all new. But yet 

the tribes know best as to facilitating, whether it is language barriers, cultural barriers, even professional barriers. Because again, 

it was stated before, some will not sell their land. We understand 

that. 

But I guarantee you that with a government to Government relationship, things would run a lot smoother. Sure, you can’t have the 

whole pie and eat it. We understand that. But work with us. Consultation has happened. At the same time, the feedback was not 

really the feedback that we were looking for, such as why not give 

us this, why not give us that. The Crow Tribe does have a purchasing program. Fort Belknap Tribe has a purchasing program. 

Fort Peck also has a purchasing program which tribes utilize their 

own resources to purchase those lands. 

Yet along the confines of the CFR and various bylaws, we plan 

to revert those to trust. Yet we are just kind of looked at as a redheaded stepchild. 

So again in closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity 

to provide this statement on behalf of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal 

leaders. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MONTANA-WYOMING TRIBAL LEADERS COUNCIL

Good afternoon. My name is Ivan Posey, and I currently serve as the Chairman 

of the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, an organization representing the 

Indian Tribes located within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Rocky Mountain Region of Montana and Wyoming. I want thank you for holding a hearing on this very 

important subject. 

As you are aware, the Tribes of the Rocky Mountain Region are large land-based 

Tribes who have unique situations and priorities. Our Tribes carry broad responsibilities over vast Reservations in rural areas, often hundreds of miles from major 

metropolitan areas. 

Today we have opportunity to help tribes to become more self-reliant and to promote economic development and increase land ownership for tribes in Indian Country, and to curb a small amount of the devastation caused by the Allotment Era. 

The Land Buy-Back Program can be and should be that vehicle, especially if Tribes 

are given the opportunity to administer their own programs. However, if the DOI 

and BIA is allowed to administer this program as it now intends to, we fear this 

program may become another ‘‘hurry-up, hire, spend, and vanish in ten years’’ program and will result in wasteful spending instead of wisely investing it and making 

it grow into a long term and sustainable program. 

One of our member Tribes, the Fort Belknap Indian Community has provided this 

Committee a brief outline, with a budget, of how the Buy-Back Program can be administered efficiently and effectively at the local level, while promoting Tribal SelfDetermination and fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Tribes and individual Indians. Under this scenario, the Program will not disappear in ten years. Instead we 

will have a perpetual Program, which will provide us with a process which will, help 

us enhance Self-Determination. What we propose is simple: Tribes should be alVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
18 

lowed to develop and administer their own Programs unique to the circumstances 

and conditions of each individual Reservation. Administrative costs should be 

passed on to Tribes or left available for land purchase. 

Tribal Leaders from our member Tribes have provided information at numerous 

sessions and meetings including those called by the Department of Interior (DOI) 

beginning in July 15th, 2011, in Billings, Montana and the concluding session in 

Seattle, WA on April 13th, 2013. Our leaders have consistently expressed the desire 

of our Tribes to administer their own Buy-Back Programs. All of the Tribes have 

reiterated that they have been utilizing their own Land Acquisition Programs for 

several decades and have expanded their respective land base by thousands of acres 

during this same period. In the time that has passed since 2011, Tribes could have 

completed many purchases but have been hindered by lack of funds. The process 

of allowing tribes to administer their own buy back programs makes complete sense 

since many have access to local appraisers and know the people from our communities. 

The Department of the Interior, since its appointment to administer the Buy-Back 

Program, has totally disregarded the wishes of our Tribes. Year after year, in program after program, the DOI and BIA continue to address the tribes with paternalistic attitudes, and the current approach to administering the Buy-Back Program is 

no different. Tribes are thwarted in their efforts towards self-sufficiency. 

The Department of the Interior has decided that it will keep the entire amount 

of money set aside for administrative costs. However, it has provided no information 

as to why the entire set aside is needed. There is no transparency or accountability 

to Tribes on how this money is being spent and no overall budget has ever been 

provided to the Tribes as primary stakeholders in the Buy Back Program. If the 

Tribes were provided the settlement funds, we would be rightfully be required to 

prove we were using and spending the funds appropriately. We believe that if Tribes 

are allowed to run Buy-Back Programs themselves, money can be saved, and ultimately used for additional land purchases, rather than administration. 

In the mid-seventies, Tribes began to contract the education department functions 

from the BIA. Prior to that the BIA was satisfied with sending tribal members to 

boarding schools and a limited number of members on to a two or four year colleges. 

Since the tribes began to contract this particular program, more students are enrolled in colleges and universities and many tribes have two or four year colleges 

on their reservations including the Aaniih Nakoda College at Ft. Belknap, Salish 

Kootenai College at Flathead, Chief Dull Knife at Northern Cheyenne, Little Big 

Horn at Crow, Blackfeet community College, Stone Child at Rocky Boy Reservation, 

Wind River Tribal College on the Wind River Reservation, and Fort Peck Community College. 

Tribal success in administering former federal programs is now widely known. 

Some of our Tribes have exercised their rights to Self-Governance under the SelfDetermination Act. Others are operating a wealth of programs on their own Reservations that were formerly operated by the BIA. Overall, Tribes have demonstrated that 638-contracting under the Self-Determination Act, ensures that services are provided to Indian beneficiaries in a manner that is specific to each Reservation’s needs and conditions. Decisions are made locally. In addition, more administrative costs are spent locally, hiring local people to carry out these important 

functions. 

Now is the time that Tribes should be given the opportunity to manage this Program like they have with education and other programs under the Self-Determination Act. In ten years they will have a prosperous and functional Land Acquisition 

Programs that will last. 

I would be also like to add that the efforts of Elouise Cobell remains in the forefront of this issue and I would like to take a moment to recognize her efforts in 

bringing these important matters to the attention of the Federal Government. The 

courts have ruled that there was mismanagement of trust assets and the government has an obligation, through treaties and executive orders, to correct these 

wrongs. I ask the committee to please hear our concerns and address them for the 

betterment of all Indian Country. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. I’m happy to answer any of your questions. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. You certainly are your name, sir. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Councilman Stafne? 

19 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRANT STAFNE, COUNCILMAN, 

ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK 

RESERVATION 

Mr. STAFNE. Good afternoon. I want to thank Chairwoman Cantwell and the Committee for holding today’s hearing. Working with 

this committee and the interior Department, Indian tribes are committed to ensuring that the $1.9 billion allocated to the trust land 

consolidation fund is wisely and fully expended in the land buyback program. 

I have learned more in these last few minutes than I have since 

the inception of the buy-back program. I would like to know where 

our cooperative agreement is. We handed this in on August 20th. 

My name is Grant Stafne. As stated earlier, I am a member of 

the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board. Over the past 20 years, I 

have worked in virtually every aspect of Indian land acquisition for 

the BIA, specializing in real estate acquisition and disposal and 

management. This year, I followed the path of my parents, the late 

June Shields Stafne and my father, A.T. Stafne, who is the current 

chairman of our tribes, and also my uncle, Caleb Shields, whom 

many of you know, and was elected to the tribal council. 

When I left Federal service, I was a deputy superintendent of 

trust services at Fort Peck Agency. I then became my tribe’s director of the land buy-back program. In a little over a year, the Fort 

Peck Tribes purchased or acquired over 10,000 acres of fee land, 

which is non-Indian land, using tribal funds. I want to point out 

that even though the land we reacquired was taken from our tribes 

under the Homestead laws, for little or no compensation, when we 

bought the land back we paid the non-Indian sellers fair market 

value. 

Interior’s land buy-back program has the potential to reduce the 

devastating loss of Indian lands that began over 125 years ago 

when Congress enacted the Allotment Acts in 1887. In its 35 years 

of existence, the Allotment Act robbed Indian Country of over 90 

million acres of Indian land, Indian-owned lands, and made reservations such as ours checkerboarded with tribal land, allotted 

land as well as fee land. 

In implementing the land buy-back program, the Interior Department has already made unilateral and troubling decisions without 

consulting Indian tribes. The program is off to a bad start. The Department must not put its interests first and the interests of Indians and tribes second. That would be too reminiscent of Federal Indian policies of the past, policies that resulted in eradication of the 

American bison and indigenous languages, the removal of Indian 

children and the taking of Indian lands, all policies to deal with the 

Indian problem. 

I encourage this Committee and Congress to learn the lessons of 

the past. The buy-back program should not be defined by what is 

easiest for the Federal trustee to administer, it should be about 

correcting a great injustice done to Indian tribes and honoring the 

Nation’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes in the 21st century. 

Our recommendations for the Department’s land buy-back program are simple. First, the Department must engage in meaningful 

consultation with tribal governments and individual Indians on 

every affected reservation. Now in order for tribal consultation to 

20 

be meaningful, it must respect tribal priorities of purchasable 

lands. But it must also include a clear implementation schedule, 

purchase ceiling amounts, mineral valuations and the appraisal 

processes. 

Interior published a draft scope of work which appears to invite 

tribal participation. But the Department has rejected the view that 

the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Act’s model 638 contract 

and well-established and familiar implementing regulations apply 

to the land buy-back program. This is nonsense. Use of this simple 

contract or a variation of the 638 contract for the buy-back program will promote efficiency and expediency, because Indian tribes 

are comfortable and familiar with it. 

Meaningful tribal consultation should also inform reservation 

mapping and land research. Interior mus provide tribes a written 

implementation schedule under the scope alert. We recommend 

that Interior begin implementing the program on the most highly 

fractionated reservations. The Department should also work out 

mutually acceptable implementation plans with tribal governments 

within 90 days and be held to such timeframes, the same timeframe as under the Self-Determination Act. 

Interior must also be transparent and provide tribes and this 

committee with quarterly statements of agency expenditures of program funds, including administrative funds set aside by the Department, so that tribes and the committee are assured that the 

vast majority of funds are expended on land buy-backs. The Department arbitrarily determined that appraisals have a nine month 

shelf life, rather than five months. This does not serve Indian 

tribes or Indian landowners. 

The Department has also delegated two appraisers the discretion 

to determine which reservation lands are purchasable and which 

are not. This is a decision best left to the tribal governments. The 

Federal Trustee, not an appraiser for hire, should solicit tribal 

views first. Our views on buy-back priorities should prevail. 

The Department has also made arbitrary decisions we find to be 

fundamentally unfair to Indian landowners. This includes denying 

landowners the right to appeal appraisal values, excluding real estate improvements and valuation, prohibiting landowners from reserving mineral interests and engaging in reservation-wide appraisals prior to determining landowner interests. These unilateral 

decisions undermine the program and should be reconsidered. 

Second, whether through requiring the Department to modify the 

settlement agreement or through legislation, Congress must ensure 

that the land buy-back program fulfills its mission, achieving substantial land consolidation to allow the tribes the ability to better 

manage our lands and to bring a small measure of redress to the 

loss of 90 million acres of Indian lands. Under the Fort Peck Allotment Act, roughly two-thirds of our original 2.1 million acres were 

allotted or opened for homesteading. Now over half of our reservation is held in fee simple status, mostly by non-Indians. It is inconceivable that true land consolidation can occur on a reservation like 

ours without the ability to purchase all interests on a reservation, 

fee or fractionated. For the buy-back program would be more than 

a vehicle to close individual Indian money accounts, IM accounts, 

Congress must act now to correct this oversight. 

21 

Third, Interior has made the process of entering into cooperative 

agreements complex, resulting in delays. There must be a baseline 

parameter in every scope of work, with simplified forms. There is 

no need for tribes to submit standardized agency forms which are 

mostly irrelevant to implementation of a buy-back program. 

In conclusion, it is time to end Federal paternalism once and for 

all. Indian tribes were once fully independent and self-sufficient. 

We can be again. We are working hard to overcome two centuries 

of mostly harmful and destructive Federal policies which 

fractionated our land and tore the fabric of our tribal communities. 

The Trust Land Consolidation Fund represents opportunity and 

promise to reverse decades of misdirection and mistreatment. The 

Interior Department must operate the program in partnership with 

tribes, consistent with its obligation as our trustee to best realize 

and achieve the program’s important goals. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stafne follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GRANT STAFNE, COUNCILMAN, ASSINIBOINE AND

SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION

Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman Cantwell and the Committee 

for holding this hearing. You have before you the ability to ensure that the $1.4 Billion allocated to the Trust Land Consolidation Fund is spent for the benefit of Indians and their Tribes. On behalf of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 

Reservation, I thank you for your interest in this important subject. 

My name is Grant Stafne. I am a member of the Fort Peck Tribal Executive 

Board, the governing body of our Tribes. Over the past 20 years I have worked in 

virtually every aspect of Indian land acquisition, primarily in local and regional real 

estate positions with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

After graduating from Wolf Point High School and Haskell Indian Junior College, 

now Haskell Indian Nations University, I began a 20-year career with the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs specializing in real estate acquisition, disposal, and management. 

I began my career as a Realty Clerk in Acquisition & Disposal (A&D) at the Fort 

Peck Agency. I was promoted to Realty Specialist in A&D first at the Fort Belknap 

Agency, and later the Rocky Mountain and Eastern Regional Offices in Billings, 

Montana, and Nashville, Tennessee. When I left from federal service I was the Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services at the Fort Peck Agency. Following federal 

service, I went to work for my Tribes as the Director of the Fort Peck Land BuyBack program. In a little over a year that I served as the Tribal Land Buy-Back 

Director, our Tribes re-acquired over 10,000 acres of land on our Reservation using 

Tribal funds. Incidentally, even though that land was taken from the Tribes and 

granted to non-Indians under the Homesteading laws for little or no compensation, 

we paid the sellers fair market value to reacquire it. 

This year I followed in the path of my parents, June and A.T. Stafne, and my 

uncle Caleb Sheilds, and ran for election to the Tribal Executive Board. 

Interior’s Land Buy-Back Program, using Trust Land Consolidation funding, has 

the potential to reduce the devastating loss of Indian lands that has persisted since 

this Congress first began enacting Allotment Acts in 1887. Sadly, in its 35-year existence, Allotment resulted in the loss of 90 million acres of Indian owned lands. 

There is no doubt that a program to restore tribal land bases and improve federal 

management of trust resources is beneficial and long overdue. 

However, because the Buy-Back Program was developed by the Department of the 

Interior unilaterally, and without any Tribal involvement whatsoever, it has been 

designed to benefit the government first, and Indian beneficiaries second. That very 

notion is reminiscent of the federal Indian policies of yesterday: policies that resulted in the eradication of the American bison, the removal of Indian children, and 

the taking of Indian lands; policies that were intended to benefit the government 

in dealing with ‘‘the Indian problem.’’ 

Almost 40 years ago, Congress declared that the new federal Indian policy would 

be one of Self-Determination, as President Nixon called it, ‘‘a new era in which the 

Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.’’ In order to comply 

with Congressionally-mandated policy, the Department should, at the very least, engage in meaningful consultation with Tribes and individual Indians on every affected Reservation. That consultation must necessarily pertain to the implementaVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
22 

tion schedule, purchase ceiling amounts, mineral valuations, and the appraisal processes for each Reservation. 

Unless Congress acts now to require meaningful consultation, it appears that the 

Interior Department intends to use the Buy-Back Program as nothing more than a 

vehicle for closure of Individual Indian Money Accounts. Surely Congress intended 

more when it appropriated nearly two billion dollars to the Land Consolidation 

Fund; surely Congress intended the Program to achieve substantial Tribal land consolidation in order to bring a small measure of redress for the loss of 90 million 

acres of Indian lands. 

Under the Fort Peck Allotment Act, roughly two-thirds of the original 2 million 

acres of Tribal lands were allotted or opened for Homesteading. Now, over half of 

our Reservation is held in fee simple status, mostly by non-Indians. It is inconceivable that true land consolidation can occur on a Reservation like ours without the 

ability to purchase of all interests. Congress and Interior must act now to address 

this oversight through modifications to the settlement agreement and corresponding 

legislation, if necessary. 

The Department has published a draft scope of work under the Program that appears to invite Tribes to participate in the various phases of implementation such 

as outreach, land research, valuation, and acquisition. This suggests that despite 

the lack of consultation, Interior nevertheless values Tribal participation. However, 

the Department insists that the Self-Determination Act, the model contract set forth 

in the Act, and the implementing regulations do not apply to the Buy-Back Program. The rejection of the Self-Determination Act as a vehicle for implementing the 

Program is a reversion to a time when federal Indian policy was driven by paternalism and patronage. Instead, the model Self-Determination contract and the implementing regulations should be used as guides for contracting with Tribes under 

the Buy-Back Program. Both Tribes and Interior have familiarity with the Self-Determination contracting process, which would promote efficiency and expediency. 

Regrettably, the process being implemented by the Department for Tribes to enter 

into Cooperative Agreements under the Program is unnecessarily complex and has 

resulted in a multitude of delays. The Department has established no baseline parameters with regard to the tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, resulting in 

lengthy and unfocused back-and-forth negotiations. In addition, the Department is 

requiring Tribes to submit SF–424s which are overly complex and largely irrelevant 

to implementation of a program designed by buy back lands for a Tribe. 

Additionally, other tasks contained in the Department’s Scope of Work, such as 

mapping and land research, have commenced without any Tribal participation. 

Moreover, the implementation schedule under the Scope of Work has not been made 

public. Based on the initial Implementation Plan, Tribes assumed that the Program 

would be implemented first at the most highly fractionated Reservations. However, 

Interior has developed an implementation schedule without consultation with Tribes 

and without a release of criteria for the schedule. For Fort Peck, Interior has only 

acknowledged receipt of our completed application but has provided no information 

on where we are on the implementation schedule. This lack of communication is 

alarming particularly for a Reservation like ours with significant mineral development and potential. Not only has Interior left us in the dark about the implementation schedule, they have provided us with no information on how minerals will be 

valued. 

The Department has made numerous critical policy decisions concerning the implementation of the Buy-Back Program without Tribal input and with what appears 

to be a complete disregard for trust responsibility the Department is obliged to administer by law. This top-down and paternalistic management style fundamentally 

undermines Congress’ intent in appropriating money for the Program. 

For example, the Department has arbitrarily determined that appraisals used 

under the Program will have a 9-month shelf life. Although appraisals are normally 

valid for 12 months, the Department has provided no information as to why this 

shorter timeframe has any benefit to the Program or Indian beneficiaries. This decision limits co-owner purchases, which are authorized by federal law. Moreover, if 

a sale cannot be completed in 9 months, which is quite plausible in our experience, 

additional costs will be incurred to update the appraisal. 

In addition, the Department has given appraisers discretion to determine which 

Reservation lands are purchasable and which are not. These decisions will apparently be made without consultation by the United States as the trustee, or by the 

Tribes as an ultimate beneficiary. This grant of authority outside the trustee-beneficiary relationship is an affront to Tribal sovereignty, a breach of the Trust Responsibility, and is fundamentally unfair to individual Indian landowners. Other arbitrary decisions by the Department that may result in fundamentally unfair treatment of the Indian landowners include: denying landowners the right to appeal apVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
23 

praisal values; excluding real estate improvements in valuation methods; prohibiting landowners from reserving mineral interests; and engaging in massive, Reservation-wide appraisals prior to determining landowner interest. 

Finally, the Department has closely guarded the fiscal activities of administering 

the program. Rather, than operating the Program transparently, the Department 

has refused to report on the expenditures of the administrative funds set aside 

under the Program. We know that the Department is spending money, even though 

not a single acre of land has been purchased under the Program. Without any 

knowledge of how much money has been spent, how can we be assured that there 

will be enough money to administer the Program throughout its life? We do know 

that the Department has determined that Indirect Costs will be capped at 15 percent for Tribes that enter into cooperative agreements, even though Tribes have negotiated indirect cost rates for all federal funding. We can only hope that the government is as concerned about its own spending as it is with ours. 

I will conclude by saying that while Congress struggles to reach agreement on 

how to fund our government, Indian Country is disproportionately affected. Conditions in Indian Country remain among the worst in the country. Indians continue 

to rank at the bottom of every social and economic indicator: unemployment, income, infant mortality, life expectancy, chemical dependency, suicide. . . . 

It should not be forgotten that these conditions are a direct result of federal policies over the last two centuries; polices that promoted paternalistic treatment of Indians and a system of political patronage. One of those policies resulted in the loss 

of 90 million acres of Indian held lands. The Buy-Back Program cannot give full redress for that loss or its effects, but the Trust Land Consolidation Fund does have 

the potential to fulfill that to which its name aspires. 

I urge the Committee to demand meaningful consultation by the Department with 

Tribes and Indian beneficiaries and require the Department to execute the Self-Determination laws and policies prescribed by Congress. 

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

be happy to answer your questions. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I want to thank all of the witnesses for their 

testimony and start with some questions. 

But one just generally first, so we can get some idea for the 

record, in general, why is this so important to your tribe as it relates to what you are trying to achieve? What is the challenge economically without being able to have the settlement and reclaim 

some of this land? What is your vision or strategy for that? Any 

of your interests that you represent. 

Mr. STAFNE. The interest I represent is 2.1 million acres of our 

reservation is held by non-Indians. We would like the settlement 

to be opened up to purchase any land available within the exterior 

boundaries of our reservation, whether it be fee land or trust land. 

We would like the opportunity to buy our reservation back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And what percentage of your reservation does 

that represent, the 2.1 million acres? 

Mr. STAFNE. It is 954 thousand that is held in trust right now. 

Roughly two-thirds of that is allotted and a third of that is tribal 

land. The remainder of it is fee land. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. Anything else from you, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. NOT AFRAID. Thank you, Chair. You asked, if the tribe isn’t 

involved, just to clarify the question. The question is that we as the 

tribe suffer if we are not involved? Or the repercussions? 

The CHAIRWOMAN. On one hand, the complexity of implementing 

this, but I am also trying to get people to understand for the record 

the importance of achieving it. You can certainly talk about failed 

policies of the past and why this program needs to be established. 

But my sense is there is also a very important economic interest 

at stake here, or a hope and economic interest that is moving toward more self-governance and self-determination and one aspect 

24 

of that is obviously getting the land back and being able to move 

forward on an economic outlook and agenda. 

Mr. NOT AFRAID. You are right, Chairwoman. You just drove the 

dagger home. What happened here, I can speak specifically of the 

Crow Reservation, within the Crow Reservation in the past, of mishandling or mis-use or what have you. Again, the intricate details 

per reservation are abundant. You have not only cultural impacts, 

you have social impacts. You have behavioral impacts. Again, without the tribe being the forefront, we are coming into a situation 

where the Government is going to see what is fit, the Government 

is going to say, this is what is best for you. 

That deters social improvement. That also deters economic development. And we as tribes, if you sat in our chairs and were governed, we are the most governed citizens of the United States. An 

example, going on a tangent here, but just to give you an example, 

look on the Crow Reservation, a law governing that you cannot consume alcohol. I was in the military and going overseas, fighting, 

being in the Marine Corps in the 1990s, you should be entitled to 

certain things, such as alcohol, if you choose. I am not a proponent 

of alcohol, but the point I am trying to make is laws within the reservations are different than laws off reservation. 

Now, is that a right? Off reservation, if the U.S. Government 

said, no more alcohol, what happens? So the point I am trying to 

make is, we are being governed at the same time by laws that don’t 

fit best for our people. And when rules are promulgated and made 

at the upper echelon, by the time it trickles down to each local 

agency, it doesn’t fit the bill. And yet we see so much inconsistency, 

such as treaties being violated. 

I don’t want to go there and play the victim. I am a big boy, I 

say hey, let’s work together, what can we do? So the thing is, if 

treaties are being violated, Congressional acts are being violated 

that were geared toward the Crow Tribe, where do we stand? Because again, this implementation of this land buy-back through 

consultation, there were times when the Indian Land Consolidation 

Act was represented by the Office, but yet, oh, no, we aren’t going 

to use that, oh, no, we can’t use that. 

Example, competent land on the Crow Indian Reservation. That 

is where lands held in trust are considered competent with five or 

less owners. Those owners have the right to negotiate and engage 

in any type of lease on their own behalf without the bill’s approval. 

It is filed at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But if they choose to 

lease their land out at $2 an acre, below the Government’s threshold of $2.50, that is their prerogative. 

Where I am going with this is, if they buy an interest, those 

landowners then have no right, because of the Office lease statutes. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Let me get Chairman Greene in here. You obviously have had a more proactive approach that seemed to work 

well. Is that because it was a smaller amount and it was easier? 

Or do you think the level of dialogue you had in the community 

worked? 

Mr. GREENE. I think, Madam Chairwoman, the smaller amount 

definitely does help. I would like to thank my fellow tribal leaders 

for their comments also, and thank you for the congratulations that 

you send to our football team. I will be sure to carry that back. 

25 

The smaller land base, the smaller amount of fractionation that 

we have in our community does help. The fact that our leadership, 

through generations of councils, have made this a priority and have 

kept up on the information I think also helped put us in the position we are here today. And definitely the hard work of the staff 

that I had mentioned. 

I think to answer your question that you asked earlier, in general, why does this need to happen, I think what is important, at 

least from Makah’s perspective, is that this land is usable. What 

that means is different for each tribe, whether it is usable for economic development, whether it is usable to protect the environment, whether it is usable to protect cultural sites, both usable and 

manageable. Because the way that these lands sit right now, with 

the high fractionation of these allotments, it is not usable and it 

is not manageable. So I think that is, in general, the overarching 

goal that I think tribes would like to get to, Madam Chair. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And you mentioned this dialogue that you had 

with the community in surveying. Did you have any challenging 

areas that you had identified that you could work within the program, but you had landowners just refusing to sell? 

Mr. GREENE. We do run into that also. There are landowners 

that for reasons mentioned, whether it is their only connection to 

their great grandmother or great grandfather, whoever it may be, 

we run into those same issues. We do also have a lot of non-tribal 

members that own land on our reservation lands that are difficult 

to find and track, and to find those people and those contacts. That 

has been a challenge and a burden. It takes a lot of resources, a 

lot of hard work to try to keep up with some of that information. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. My question is, do you think you have been 

successful because some of those tribal members realize there is a 

larger goal at hand and that is persuasive? So all of this communication, all this tribal vision, all of that plays an important role 

in the communication? 

Mr. GREENE. For Makah, absolutely. I think that definitely plays 

a role. It is something that the community has been aware of and 

through the different leaderships, the message has been brought 

out to try to fix those issues. 

I think there is a general belief in the community and a broader 

vision that these lands are usable and manageable and that the 

public can enjoy them and get benefit from them. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Councilman Stafne, how long do you think it 

would take Fort Peck to spend the $80 million just in purchasing 

fractional interests on your reservation? 

Mr. STAFNE. Madam Chair, that depends on the appraisals and 

if OST or their office is willing to give us appraisals right away. 

We are ready, willing and able to do this as soon as possible. 

I also want to point out that it was stated earlier by their Department, that buy-backs, they are still purchasing, whether it be 

undivided trust interests or undivided fee interests or total fee interests, they stated that they were going to reimburse us for the 

tracts of land that we already purchased. And now it comes to find 

out that they are not going to reimburse us until the cooperative 

agreement is approved. Why don’t they approve it, then? We have 

26 

been waiting on this since August. We would really like to have a 

response. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Something tells me you will get one after 

today. 

Mr. STAFNE. I thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The things that you outlined, many of the 

things, I should say, that you outlined, the issue of transparency, 

the 90 days of updates, the funds spent, just basic information so 

that people can track it I think is important. I think those are fair 

things. I think the issues you mentioned about the appraisal process, in and of itself, those are challenging and sticky issues that I 

have no idea what the formal response of the agency is. But it 

makes it, we should have clarity on this. Obviously not every piece 

of land is the same, and some obviously do have mineral rights to 

them and value. So we should have some clarification on that part. 

I am certain the agency probably did look at 638 and decided 

against it. I guess the agency now has to show that they can make 

this successfully work or else you will have people calling for a different process to go through this. 

I am curious, so when you entered your communication agreement with the agency, you said it was finalized or presented in August. How long had you been dialoguing with the agency? 

Mr. STAFNE. Through working with our attorney, it was her 

prodding that finally found out that we were the first one in the 

Nation to hand in a completed contract for agreement. Now it is 

my understanding that there are eight. And it has recently been 

told that there is actually an approved one. 

I find it highly ironic that they approved one right before we 

came and testified before you. 

Also, the 15 percent administrative fees that they are withholding, that is pretty much, giving 15 percent to someone that created the problem in the first place, give it to the tribes so we can 

buy our land back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman Not Afraid? 

Mr. NOT AFRAID. Just to add on that last statement, the tribes, 

upon implementation of the current systems, such as we talked 

about OST appraisals, the Crow Tribe is currently, with its own enrolled members, running our appraisal program, which is a 638 

from OST. So to streamline a lot of things, we are equipped in a 

lot of aspects, going down to the MOA, we are currently waiting, 

we did submit one. I have a time line here. I should know it off 

the top of my head. 

As of July, the land buy-back kickoff in January, there were initial meetings, question and answer session. There was an assessment, development plan and outreach, implement survey in January of 2013. January to June, we had pre-offer outreach. April to 

June, field technicians available for land appraisals. July to September, identified notaries and provided outreach activities. July to 

September, post-offer outreach. September 15th to September 30th, 

provided outreach activities, assessed offer master list. 

And then we had possible second waive offers, those were to be 

discussed. And our chairman has recently submitted a letter to Mr. 

McClanahan dated December 9th, which was just recent. That was 

in regard to our memorandum of agreement, and we included a 

27 

budget with that to administer. Again, we can maximize the dollar. 

As the Bureau itself knows, we can do more with less money. So 

the tribe is taking that approach with this budget, do more with 

less money in the aspect of administering. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Well, it seems, I am definitely going to have 

to consult with the Vice Chairman on this, on how we continue to 

communicate our interest in seeing more metrics and more measurements of the program. We will certainly have a follow-up hearing on this subject. 

It seems that Chairman Greene, working without asking permission, he started consolidating that information of his tribe and then 

presented that, juxtaposed as some of the, let’s get a formal communication. It is almost, I don’t want to overstate, if I am getting 

it wrong, please correct me, but it seemed like you did that and 

then said, okay, now we want to get an agreement with you, but 

you already had these things done. 

I am not saying that whatever that is, maybe that argues more 

for 638, if nothing else. Because here is somebody that got their act 

together and did it on their own and then presented, almost packaged with a bow on it, here you go, now let’s have a formal agreement and here is what we want. Again, the acreage may have been 

a smaller amount, so it was easier to do. Then the consultation 

went easier. 

But clearly, we are hearing loud and clear that tribal communities are very concerned about the slow implementation of the 

buy-back program and that we have to have more oversight and 

more metrics and more implementation. We will be monitoring this 

very, very closely. 

Your testimony has been very helpful. There is a lot here to follow up on with the agency. We will hold the record open for two 

weeks in case my colleagues, if anybody else wants to submit information for the record or has questions of you, so that we can have 

that. We will certainly be asking the agency for more information 

as well. 

But again, thank you for being here and for the representation 

you are providing for your various tribal entities. We appreciate 

the leadership. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION OF LARGE TRIBES

Introduction 

The Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT) appreciates the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs’ oversight of the Department of the Interior’s implementation of the 

Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. COLT members will be among the most 

affected by the Program. Nearly all of our members have already been identified by 

Interior as having reservations with the most fractionated lands. In addition, COLT 

members make up seven of the top ten tribes with the most fractionated lands. 

COLT is concerned that recent Interior decisions in implementing the Program 

will ultimately diminish the success of the Program. Interior should follow the direction of the Cobell v. Salazar Settlement Agreement and the Claims Resolution Act 

of 2010, P.L. No. 111–216, approving the Settlement, and work with tribes as partners to implement the Program. 

While the Cobell v. Salazar litigation concerned individual Indian interests, COLT 

members and a number of other tribes have significant interests in the success of 

the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. The interests in lands purchased 

through the Program will be returned to tribal status and held in trust for the benefit of the tribes. In addition to other concerns, we need to ensure that the lands 

purchased will provide maximize benefits to the tribes. As Interior takes its first steps to implement this $1.9 billion program, COLT asks 

that the Committee take a close look at Interior’s plan. COLT is particularly concerned with the process Interior proposes for entering into Cooperative Agreements 

with tribal governments to assist in the implementation of the Program. The Land 

Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations is one of the largest Indian programs the Federal Government will undertake and it deserves close scrutiny by the Committee. 

Large Land Base Tribes Have a Substantial Interest in the Program 

COLT was established in April 2011 to provide a unified advocacy base for tribes 

that govern large trust land bases and provide full service in the governing of their 

members and reservations. As a part of its mission, COLT closely monitored Interior’s development of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. COLT members participated in tribal consultation sessions and filed comments during the development of the Program. COLT also worked closely with Interior in the development of a Cooperative Agreement template for tribes to assist in the implementation 

of the Program. 

As you know, the Program is the result of the settlement of the long-running 

Cobell v. Salazar litigation regarding the Federal Government’s mismanagement of 

Indian trust lands and resources. On December 7, 2009, the parties to that litigation 

entered into a Settlement Agreement which included a $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Settlement Agreement was approved by Congress as a part of 

the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, P.L. No. 111–291, and ultimately finalized by 

the courts following the exhaustion of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 24, 2012. The Fund must be used within 10 years, by November 24, 2022. The $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund will be implemented through Interior’s Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. The subject of today’s hearing. 

The Program will use the $1.9 billion in funding to purchase individual Indian 

fractionated interests in allotted lands, as well as to administer the Program and 

make payments into a scholarship fund intended to incentivize the sale of individual 

fractionated interests. Once purchased, the fractionated interests will be returned 

to tribal status and held in trust for the tribe on whose reservation the purchase 

was made. 

Thus, while the Cobell v. Salazar litigation and much of the Settlement Agreement concern mismanagement of individual Indian lands, COLT members and other 

tribal governments have a substantial interest in the successful implementation of 

the Land Buy-Back Program portion of the Settlement Agreement. First, we want 

to ensure that our members will be treated fairly if they choose to sell their lands. 

30 

And, second, the more that fractionated interests are returned to tribal status, the 

better tribal governments will be able to develop and manage lands for the benefit 

of our tribal communities. 

Returning lands to tribal ownership through the Land Buy-Back Program will be 

a small but important step to address the long-standing effects of the Federal Government’s failed allotment policies. Through the policy of allotment, beginning with 

the General Allotment Act of 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act), 24 Stat. 388, 

until 1934, when allotment was repealed, tribal land areas had decreased from 138 

million acres to 48 million—a 65 percent reduction. As tribes with large land bases 

and a history of utilizing resources over large areas, COLT member tribes suffered 

the most from the Federal Government’s policy of breaking up large tribal land 

bases. 

Greater Tribal Involvement is Necessary for the Successful Implementation 

of the Program 

Interior is unnecessarily restricting tribal involvement in the implementation of 

the Land-Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations. While everyone agrees that tribal 

participation is essential to the success of the Program, Interior has made a number 

of decisions that limit tribal involvement and will reduce the amount of fractionated 

interests in lands that are acquired. Moreover, the interests that Interior does acquire may not provide maximum benefit for the tribe involved. To address these 

issues and help to ensure the success of the Program, COLT asks that the Committee exercise its oversight role and seek changes in how Interior is implementing 

the Program. 

First, Interior is not fully utilizing existing tribal land consolidation offices. A 

number of COLT member tribes have well-established and successful land consolidation offices. These offices have long been working pursuant to the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § § 2201 et seq., (ILCA) to reduce fractionation and address 

the effects of allotment. To ensure that tribes receive the maximum benefit from the 

Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations, Interior should be working in partnership with these offices. 

In fact, the Settlement Agreement directs Interior to utilize these tribal land consolidation offices. Section F.1. of the Settlement Agreement requires that ‘‘the Interior Defendants shall distribute the Trust Land Consolidation Fund in accordance 

with the Land Consolidation Program authorized under 25 U.S.C. § § 2201 et seq., 

any other applicable legislation enacted pursuant to this Agreement, and applicable 

provisions of this Agreement.’’ Under ILCA, Indian tribes, not the Secretary, identify and make land purchases. 

Ultimately, the Claims Resolution Act also needed to provide authority for the 

Secretary, as a party to the litigation and Settlement Agreement, to make these 

land purchases. Subsection 101 (e)(4) of the Act provides that, ‘‘The Secretary may 

acquire, at the discretion of the Secretary and in accordance with the Land Consolidation Program, any fractional interest in trust or restricted land.’’ Yet, this subsection’s reference to the Land Consolidation Program reinforces the roles of tribes 

in the purchase of lands. 

The Land Consolidation Program, as defined in the Claims Resolution Act, provides a dual role for tribes and Interior in implementing the Program. Subsection 

101 (a)(4) provides that the term ‘‘‘Land Consolidation Program’ means a program 

conducted in accordance with the Settlement, the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 

U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), and subsection (e)(2) under which the Secretary may purchase 

fractional interests in trust or restricted land.’’ 

Thus, both the Settlement Agreement and the Claims Resolution Act, through 

their reliance on ILCA, require significant tribal leadership and participation in the 

purchase of lands. As a result, Interior should be fully utilizing existing tribal land 

consolidation offices and providing a significant role for Indian tribes in the repurchase of tribal lands. Not only will these existing resources provide greater efficiency to the implementation of the Program, but the expertise of these offices will 

help to ensure the most beneficial lands are acquired. 

Second, Interior is discouraging tribal participation in the Land Buy-Back Program through an unduly bureaucratic and cumbersome application process for Cooperative Agreements. In the absence of ‘‘638 contracts’’ to implement the Program, 

COLT actively sought the use of Cooperative Agreements and helped to negotiate 

an agreement template. However, in implementing these agreements Interior is discouraging tribal participation by making it difficult and burdensome to successfully 

apply for and complete a Cooperative Agreement. Given the need to complete the 

Program within 10 years and the number of tribes involved, an efficient and flexible 

process is needed for tribes to enter into Cooperative Agreements. 

31 

COLT asks that the Committee investigate the process Interior is using for entering into Cooperative Agreements. Rather than using common methods used by Indian tribes and the Federal government to work in partnership toward a shared 

goal, such as a grant or contract, Interior decided to classify Cooperative Agreements for the Program as a ‘‘financial assistance award.’’ These ‘‘financial assistance 

awards’’ have resulted in Interior requiring a number of inefficient steps as we all 

try to jointly implement the Program. 

For example, Interior is applying the cumbersome federal procurement provisions 

of Office of Management and Budget Circular A–87 (OMB A–87). Among other 

things, OMB A–87 requires tribes to develop detail cost estimates from three 

sources for supplies needed to implement a Cooperative Agreement under the Land 

Buy-Back Program. As a result, instead of researching land records and contacting 

tribal members willing to sell their lands, tribal staff are spending their time completing a cumbersome bidding process for computers and other typical office equipment needed to implement the Program. 

In another example, as a part of entering into Cooperative Agreements, Interior 

is requiring tribes to complete Standard Forms 424, 424A, and 424D for the receipt 

of financial assistance. These forms, again, require overly detailed information and 

ask a number of questions that appear to be irrelevant to project implementation. 

Instead of directing tribes into generic Federal government application processes for 

‘‘financial assistance awards,’’ the Program should be utilizing streamlined agreement and financing processes that allow the Federal Government and tribes to partner in the implementation of the Program. 

In another example, Interior is requiring tribes to advertise and select employees 

through a competitive application process even though everyone knows the jobs will 

be temporary. Appointments should be fast tracked based on the expertise needed 

to implement the Program quickly and efficiently. 

Meanwhile, Interior is providing little guidance as tribes attempt to navigate this 

cumbersome and bureaucratic hiring process. For example, Interior could be providing a set number of employees that it would be willing to fund for each task 

under a Cooperative Agreement based on reservation size, funding, and level of fractionation. Yet, we understand that some tribes have had to exchange hiring plans 

with Interior more than 5 times before Interior would clearly state how many staff 

positions they would fund. 

And, in another example, COLT understands that tribes are having difficulty finalizing Scope of Work documents for a Cooperative Agreement. Again, Interior has 

not provided guidance in the form of baseline parameters for the tasks set out in 

its Scope of Work Template. This has resulted in lengthy negotiations and exchange 

of documents before agreement can be reached. Moreover, because Interior is not 

fully utilizing tribal offices, tribes have been forced to engage in these lengthy discussions to implement only small parts of the overall Program. 

In each of these areas, Interior has established numerous requirements for tribal 

participation, yet has provided little guidance on fulfilling these requirements. This 

level of inefficiency and bureaucratic governance has COLT concerned that the Land 

Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations will not achieve the full potential of the $1.9 

billion available to consolidate tribal land holdings. The Program represents a significant opportunity for the Federal government and tribal governments to address 

some of the long-standing effects of the disastrous Federal policy of allotment. Rather than creating roadblocks, Interior must open doors to encourage tribal participation. Tribal participation is required by the Settlement Agreement and the Claims 

Resolution Act and is needed to ensure the success of the Program in tribal communities. 

Tribes Must be Protected Under the Federal Tort Claims Act During 

Implementing 

Cooperative Agreements between Interior and Indian tribes should provide tribal 

employees with coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Act provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing parties claiming to have been injured 

by negligent actions of employees of the Federal government to file claims against 

the government. The Act also provides authority for the Federal government to defend against such claims. Congress has extended authority under the Act to include 

tribal employees carrying out contracts, grants or cooperative agreements under a 

‘‘638 contract.’’ 

As tribes provide assistance implementing Interior’s Land Buy-Back Program for 

Tribal Nations, our employees should be provided this basic protection against accidents and injuries to others that may happen on the job. For example, to conduct 

outreach to remote parts of our reservations, tribal employees will spend many 

hours on often substandard BIA roads. If an employee causes an accident while carVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
32 

rying out these duties, the Federal Government should provide protection under the 

Act. 

While COLT understands that Interior has decided that it cannot use ‘‘638 contracts’’ to implement the Program, general contractors to the United States have 

been provided with coverage under the Act. Just as any other contractor working 

in pursuit of Federal goals would be covered, tribal employees should also be covered. 

Additional Issues Likely to Affect the Success of the Program 

COLT is concerned that Interior is charging ahead without sufficiently considering the effect of a variety of issues on the success of the Program. We describe 

some of these additional issues below. 

• Interior should be casting a wide net to certify and approve contract appraisers 

to speed up implementation of this key aspect of the Program. 

• Appraisals conducted under the Program will expire after 9 months. Depending 

on how long it takes to accomplish a sale, this may result in multiple appraisals 

being required for the same property. Yet, current BIA practice is that an appraisal is good for up to 18 months. To ensure that resources are not wasted 

on multiple appraisals, the current BIA standards should be used. 

• COLT seeks a fair appraisal process. Interior is proposing to use mass appraisals, 

but flexibility needs to be built into the mass appraisal process. For example, 

on reservations with oil and gas development, Interior must recognize that production levels can vary across a reservation. Fractionated interest owners 

should get an appraisal based on the best price for their land and not a reservation-wide average. In addition, to ensure that the appraisal and sale process is 

fair, Interior should also provide a streamlined appeal process to contest an appraisal or notice of sale. 

• Interior must provide a higher minimum payment to promote the sale of very 

small fractionated interests in land. Purchasing these small fractionated interests provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Success in 

consolidating ownership in highly fractionated lands is also very important to 

making tribal lands easier to manage and develop. COLT sought a minimum 

payment of $500 for the sale of a fractionated interest to ensure that these interests get sold. Interior’s decision to use $75 as its minimum payment jeopardizes the success of the Program. 

• Interior should provide individual Indians a right of first refusal to purchase 

fractionated interests. In some cases, an individual Indian may be in the best 

position to acquire fractionated interests and put land to beneficial use. In other 

cases, an individual may be able to save a family farm for future generations. 

In addition, allowing for individual Indians to purchases fractionated interests 

will spare some of the Program’s funding and will spread the benefits of the 

Program over a larger area. 

• Finally, tribal participation in the Program could also be increased by allowing 

tribes to access the Trust Asset Account Management System (TAAMS) and 

other federal data bases. Limiting access to these databases will slow the Program down and jeopardize the success of the Program. Interior should open up 

access to TAAMS to every tribal contractor. 

Conclusion 

COLT asks that the Committee investigate these concerns and seek necessary 

changes to the Program. While the Cobell v. Salazar litigation only concerned individual Indian claims against the Federal Government, Indian tribes have a significant interest in the successful implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program for 

Tribal Nations. Tribal interests were recognized in the provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement and the Claims Resolution Act provided an important role for tribes in 

implementing the Program. Indian tribes and Interior should be working in partnership, but Interior seems to have adopted a take it or leave it approach. We ask that 

the Committee seek changes to this approach to help ensure the success of the Program and the maximum benefit to Indian tribes. 

33 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELEN SANDERS, ALLOTTEE AND JIM HARP, 

CHAIRMAN, ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION AND AFFILIATED TRIBES, QUINAULT

RESERVATION

We appreciate the Senate Indian Affairs Committee conducting a nomination 

hearing for the Special Trustee for American Indians. We are very hopeful that this 

is moving in the direction of the continuation of the Office of Special Trustee (OST). 

Regarding the OST, we have a statement concerning a proposal to undo the 

progress that has been made for the many Indian beneficiaries across Indian Country for the past twenty years. 

Proposed Indian Trust Asset Reform Act 

We oppose S. 3679. 

S. 3679 is a proposal by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI). The 

legislation proposes to undo a program that is working efficiently and honestly in 

asset management and distribution of individual and tribal trust funds. S. 3679 

mandates the following three errors listed below will plunge trust asset management into the abyss where it was lodged for decades and also raises the specter of 

new problems. 

1. Abolition of the Office of Special Trustee 

The Office of Special Trustee (OST) was created in light of errors and 

mismanagement of federal trust brought to light in the case Cobell v. Kempthorne/Norton/Babbit/Salazar that was ultimately resolved in a negotiated settlement for $3.4 billion in 2009. The OST has proven that it can effectively deal with 

the complex accounting and distribution of assets in both individual and tribal trust 

accounts. S. 3679 proposes to abolish OST. This is a mistake. The OST is working 

and its operations have proven that the investment in its programs are well-spent. 

2. Turning Trust Fund Management over to Civil Service Employees 

The Act of 1994 which established the OST does not operate under the same requirements as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 3679 Proposes to transfer trust fund 

management to civil service Employees in the BIA. Federal Civil Service personnel 

are employed because of their G–S level, not specifically because of their special 

competency to manage money and execute judicious investment strategies for the 

benefit of non-competent Indians. The transfer of responsibility from the OST to federal personnel without explicit requirements defining the unique talents and knowledge required for the assignment is a mistake. 

3. Setting the Stage for Contracting Out Trust Services 

S. 3679 creates a mechanism whereby the Bureau of Indian Affairs can contract 

out trust services to tribes while leaving part of the program with the Bureau. The 

nation’s more than 550 tribes and Native American communities do not possess the 

expertise to fulfill trust responsibilities at the highest level for the beneficiaries of 

the trust. The prospect of contracting out trust services fractionalizes and duplicates 

the efforts. 

S. 3679 provides for moving Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts from the 

OST to tribes via the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracting or compacting with tribes 

for this duty. Contracting out trust services creates the real prospect of weakening 

trust responsibility and dramatically lessens protection for the individual Indian. 

The proposed proliferation of management tasks weakens rather than strengthens 

the program inherent in the federal trust doctrine. 

Contracting out trust services leaves only a skeleton staff and reduced funding of 

trust services to those tribes and individuals who do not enter into contracting or 

compacting agreements. 

General Comments 

The United States government has legal obligations of trust responsibility both 

to tribes and to individual Indians. In particular, I call attention to the decision 

Mitchell, et al v. United States, 463 U.S. 206, a landmark case. The U.S. Supreme 

Court ruled that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to the individual allottee or his or her heirs by maintenance of the value of the property, including funds, over time. 

S. 3679 has the potential to not only destroy a program that is working but also 

to cost more money. Presumably only a few number of tribes would contract or compact to take over trust services. Each tribe that does so, however, would request 

funding. Tribes and individuals whose funds remain with the Bureau of Indian Affairs would be served by a program with less funding. 

34 

It is essential that fiduciary trust functions be operated separately from the other 

program duties of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and likewise from tribal duties. S. 

3679 proposes to conflate fiduciary trust and non-fiduciary trust duties at both the 

federal and tribal level. This legislation will undo the resolution of the prolonged 

and costly Cobell case. 

If tribes want to move tribal trust funds ONLY from the OST to the BIA, we 

would support them, providing it is clear that Individual Indian Monies (IIM) would 

remain at the OST under the present management. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE


1212a1.eps
35 


1212a2.eps
36 


1212a3.eps
37 


1212a4.eps
38 


1212a5.eps
39 


1212a6.eps
40 


1212a7.eps
41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY


1212b1.eps
42 


1212b2.eps
43 


1212b3.eps
44 


1212b4.eps
45 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BERREY, CHAIRMAN, QUAPAW TRIBE


1212b5.eps 1212b6.eps
46 


1212b7.eps
47 

*Response to the following written questions was not received before the 

hearing’s print deadline* 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TIM JOHNSON TO

HON. LAWRENCE ROBERTS

Question 1. In my home state of South Dakota, the Oglala Sioux Tribe was the 

first tribe to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the Department of the Interior to implement the Land Buy-Back program. In mid-December, 2013, owners of 

fractionated land were given purchase offer packets to be completed in 45 days. The 

Oglala Sioux Tribe is one of the most fractionated reservations. How will the Interior work with the tribal land buy-back program to address issues that arise in the 

first venture of purchasing fractionated interests? 

Question 1a. Mr. Roberts, you stated that it is expected that hiccups and issues 

will arise in the start of purchasing fractionated interests. If solutions to problems 


1212b8.eps
48 

are made to improve the program during this introductory phase, will the Interior 

re-extend purchase offers to those land owners who did not take offers due to unforeseen issues? 

Question 1b. Does the Interior have the ability to be flexible on the 45 day period 

timeframe that purchase offer packets are due? 

Question 2. During the December 11, 2013 hearing, the topic of administrative 

costs was discussed. Mr. Roberts you stated that it was the goal of the administration to spend less than the allocated amount to maintain the buy-back program. 

What will happen to the remaining funds? 

Questions 3. I have heard many concerns regarding the 15 percent cap for administrative costs for tribes entering into cooperative agreements. Legislatively, a 15 

percent cap is not specified. In the Cobell Settlement Agreement it is stated that 

‘‘An amount up to a total of no more than 15 percent of the Trust Land Consolidation Fund shall be used for purposes [of implementing the Land Consolidation Program].’’ The reading of this language does not specify that each tribe should have 

a cap of 15 percent, but that the cap of 15 percent is aimed at the total use of the 

Trust Land Consolidation Fund. How did the Interior decide to place a cap of 15 

percent for administrative costs for tribes entering into cooperative agreements? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP TO

HON. LAWRENCE ROBERTS

Question 1. While the Cobell v. Salazar litigation was about mismanagement of 

individual Indian trust accounts and resources, Indian tribes have a lot to gain from 

the $1.9 billion Land Buy-Back Plan for Tribal Nations. After individual’s interests 

in land are purchased, these interests and lands will be returned to tribes to hold 

consolidated tribal ownership and address some of the long-standing problems of allotment. Once lands are consolidated tribes will have a much easier time developing 

those lands to serve their communities. Given the significant tribal interests in the 

Program what has the Department done to ensure that the Buy-Back Program benefits tribes? And, what has the Department done to provide tribes with the opportunity to direct how the Buy-Back Program will be implemented on their reservations? 

Question 2. The Cobell v. Salazar Settlement Agreement and the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 said the Secretary shall purchase lands in accordance with the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) and the Land Consolidation Program which 

also incorporates ILCA. ILCA says tribes shall lead buy-back efforts on their reservations. Given the significant role ILCA provides tribes, is the Department following the law and providing tribes with leadership role in the Land Buy-Back Plan 

for Tribal Nations? I understand tribes can enter into Cooperative Agreements with 

Interior, but do these Cooperative Agreements provide tribes with leadership roles 

as the law requires? 

Question 3. I understand some tribes have found the negotiation process for a Cooperative Agreement to be unduly complex and burdensome. What is the Department doing to improve the process and quickly finalize these agreements so we can 

get people on the ground buying back land for tribes? 

Question 4. One of the Program’s most important goals is to consolidate small 

fractionated interests. I understand the Department plans to include a base payment of $75 dollars in every offer to purchase fractionated interests in lands. The 

Department describes this payment as compensation for a land owner’s time and 

expenses in responding to an offer. The Department makes clear it is not providing 

a minimum payment to help incentivize the purchase of small fractionated interests. 

To promote the sale of small fractionated interests and the overall success of the 

Program, tribes have recommended minimum payments of $500 for each 

fractionated interest. Why did the Department decide not to provide a minimum 

payment for small fractionated interests? What is the Department’s plan if the $75 

base payment is ultimately too low to incentivize enough small fractionated interests to sell? 

Question 5. Indian energy development has been an incredible benefit to tribes 

across the country, including the Mandan Hidatsa and Arikara Nation located in 

my state. In such areas where minerals have high development potential, owners 

may be willing to sell their interest in a surface estate but unwilling to sell their 

interest in the mineral estate. However, on page A–2, the Department’s Updated 

Implementation Plan states the Department ‘‘will not make bifurcated offers to purchase surface and mineral interests separately because such purchases would not 

reduce fractionation.’’ By consolidating interests in the surface estate, the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:44 Aug 08, 2014 Jkt 089368 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89368.TXT JACK
49 

ment would streamline approvals for right-of-ways, surface leasing necessary for the 

development energy resources, and energy transportation corridors. Wouldn’t it be 

beneficial for the Department to reduce surface fractionation wherever it could and, 

particularly, where energy development is occurring? 

Question 6. Also on page A–2 of the Department’s Updated Implementation plan, 

the Department states that it is ‘‘considering including a minimum base payment 

for mineral interests in offers sent to landowners, in accordance with past Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) land consolidation activities.’’ The tribes I have spoken with 

have not been provided information about a base payment for mineral interests. 

Will this minimum base payment be an incentive payment to promote the success 

of the Program, or merely compensation for an owner’s time and expenses in responding to an offer? Will this minimum base payment be based on mineral appraisals? What will be the amount or the range for this minimum base payment? 

Æ