```

[House Report 107-706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-706

======================================================================

 
 YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE AND SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE EQUITABLE COMPENSATION ACT

                                _______
                                

October 1, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 434]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(S. 434) to provide equitable compensation to the Yankton Sioux 
Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska 
for the loss of value of certain lands, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of S. 434 is to provide equitable compensation 
to the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux 
Tribe of Nebraska for the loss of value of certain lands.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized the Pick-Sloan 
Missouri River Basin program to protect urban and rural areas 
from devastating floods of the Missouri River and to provide 
for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa. The Fort Randall and 
Gavins Point projects overlay the western boundary of the 
Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation and the eastern boundary of 
the Santee Sioux Indian Reservation respectively. The projects, 
which are major components of the Pick-Sloan program, impound a 
large quantity of water and generate a substantial amount of 
hydropower.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers condemned the Indian lands 
used for the Fort Randall and Gavins Point projects. The 
Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes claim they did not 
receive just compensation for the taking of productive 
agricultural Indian lands, while the United States gave five 
other Indian reservations upstream compensation for direct 
damages from the Pick-Sloan program. The Yankton Sioux and 
Santee Sioux tribes claim that their previous settlement 
agreement with the United States to provide compensation for 
the past takings by condemnation did not account for the 
increase in property values between the date of taking and the 
date of settlement.
    In addition to the financial compensation provided under 
the previous settlement agreement, S. 434 authorizes additional 
compensation in an aggregate amount equal to $23,023,743 plus 
interest for the loss of value of 2,851.40 acres to the Yankton 
Sioux Tribe, and an aggregate amount equal to $4,789,010 plus 
interest for the loss of value of 593.10 acres to the Santee 
Sioux Tribe.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    S. 434 was introduced on March 1, 2001, by Senator Tom 
Daschle (D-SD). On July 24, 2002, S. 434 passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent. S. 434 was referred to the House Committee 
on Resources on July 25, 2002. On September 12, 2002, the Full 
Committee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were offered 
and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by unanimous consent.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
enactment of this bill would increase direct spending by $49 
million in 2013, but it would have no significant impact on the 
federal budget for the 2003-2012 time period.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to provide equitable compensation to 
the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux 
Tribe of Nebraska for the loss of value of certain lands.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 19, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 434, the Yankton 
Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Walker.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 434--Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe Equitable 
        Compensation Act

    Summary: S. 434 would compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe 
and the Santee Sioux Tribe for the taking of certain tribal 
lands by the federal government. CBO estimates that enacting 
this act would have no significant impact on the federal budget 
over the 2003-2012 period. Enacting S. 434 would increase 
direct spending by an estimated $49 million, but pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply because the spending would not occur 
until fiscal year 2013.
    S. 434 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Tribal governments might incur some costs as a result of this 
act, but those costs would be voluntary.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
that enacting S. 434 would result in direct spending of $49 
million in 2013, but would have no significant impact on the 
federal budget before then. For this estimate, CBO assumes that 
S. 434 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2003.
    S. 434 would provide compensation to the two tribes for the 
taking of 3,445 acres of land by the federal government for 
various water projects. The act would establish the Yankton 
Sioux Tribe Development Trust Fund and the Santee Sioux Tribe 
Development Trust Fund and would direct the Secretary of the 
Treasury to deposit a total of $28 million into interest-
bearing accounts to benefit the tribes on the first day of the 
11th fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment. An 
additional deposit equal to the amount of interest that the 
fund would have earned if the fund had been capitalized and 
invested in 2003 would be made at the same time. CBO estimates 
that this additional payment would be $21 million, for a total 
deposit of $49 million in 2013. Once the Secretary pays these 
amounts, any monetary claims the tribes may have against the 
United States regarding the affected lands would be 
extinguished. Starting in 2013, the act would allow the tribes 
to spend amounts equivalent to the annual interest earned on 
the fund pursuant to a tribal spending plan.
    Payments to certain trust funds that are held and managed 
in a fiduciary capacity by the federal government on behalf of 
Indian tribes are treated as payments to a nonfederal entity. 
As a result, CBO expects that the entire amount deposited to 
the fund in 2013 would be recorded as budget authority and 
outlays in that year. Because the trust funds would be 
nonbudgetary, the subsequent use of such funds by the tribe 
would not affect federal outlays.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. For the 
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
effects through 2007 are counted. CBO estimates that enacting 
S. 434 would not affect direct spending or receipts in any of 
those years.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 434 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA, but it would impose some conditions on the 
affected tribes for receipt of federal funds. The act would 
require the tribes to prepare and adopt plans for using 
payments from the trust fund and to obtain audits of their 
expenditures. The tribes would receive significant benefits 
from enactment of this legislation.
    Previous CBO estimate: On April 16, 2002, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 434 as ordered reported by the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs on March 21, 2002. On September 19, 
2002, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2408, an 
identically titled bill, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Resources on September 12, 2002. These different 
versions of the legislation are very similar, and our cost 
estimates are the same.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Lanette J. Walker; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller; and Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                                  

```