99–010 

1 Act of December 22, 1944, § 9, 58 Stat. 891 (commonly known as the ‘‘Flood Control Act of 

1944’’). 2See, e.g., Treaty of Fort Laramie, Sept. 17, 1851, 11 Stat. 749; Treaty with Sioux Indians, 

April 29, 1868, 15 Stat. 635; Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888. 

Calendar No. 680 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–357 

ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON A COMPREHENSIVE RESOLUTION OF IMPACTS 

CAUSED TO CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES BY THE PICK-SLOAN PROGRAM 

DECEMBER 8, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3648] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill, 

S. 3648, to establish a commission to conduct a study and provide 

recommendations on a comprehensive resolution of impacts caused 

to certain Indian tribes by the Pick-Sloan Program, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, and recommends that the 

bill, as amended, do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 3648 is to establish a commission to conduct 

a study and provide recommendations to the President and the 

Congress for a comprehensive resolution of impacts to seven Indian 

tribes caused by the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program 

(Pick-Sloan Program),1 and to authorize all actions and provide 

funding necessary for the commission to perform its duties under 

this Act. 

BACKGROUND

Establishment of Indian reservations along the Missouri River 

From 1851 to 1889, the United States entered into treaties and 

agreements with the tribes and bands of the Three Affiliated Tribes 

of the Fort Berthold Reservation and the Sioux Nation.2 In these 

treaties and agreements, the United States recognized the Indians’ 

territories, and the tribes and bands reserved lands for their perVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR357.XXX SR357

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

manent homelands. Seven of these reservations are along the Missouri River in the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska: the Fort Berthold Reservation, the Standing Rock Sioux 

Reservation, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, Lower Brule Sioux 

Reservation, Crow Creek Sioux Reservation, Yankton Sioux Reservation, and the Santee Sioux Reservation. 

Although these reservations were significantly smaller than the 

tribes’ former territories, the seven reservations were strategically 

located along the resource rich Missouri River. The Missouri River’s wooded bottomlands provided the tribes’ reservation economies 

with fertile agricultural lands, timber for lumber and fuel, coal deposits, seasonal fruits, habitat for wild game, medicines, shelter for 

domestic animals, and plentiful supplies of clean water. These 

lands were also an important part of the tribes’ social, cultural, and 

spiritual lives. Much of the tribes’ community infrastructure was 

located along the river, including, tribal homes, schools, hospitals, 

government buildings, churches, graveyards, and roads. 

Plans for dam development 

As a part of the Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress authorized 

significant dam development on the Missouri River through the 

Pick-Sloan Program. The Pick-Sloan Program was a joint water development program of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Army Corps of Engineers plan was primarily concerned with flood control and navigation, while the Bureau of Reclamation plan was focused on developing large irrigation projects in the upper basin, and providing for domestic water 

supply and hydroelectric power. 

The Pick-Sloan Program included development of six mainstem 

dams on the Missouri River in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Five of these dams flooded the seven Indian 

reservations previously established along the Missouri River: the 

Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavin’s Point dams. 

These dams created large reservoirs called Lake Sakakawea, Lake 

Oahe, Lake Sharpe, Lake Francis Case, and Lewis and Clark Lake. 

Mainstem dam construction began in the mid-1940’s and was completed in 1966. 

The Pick-Sloan Program resulted in the flooding of hundreds of 

thousands of acres of the tribes’ reservation lands, including rich 

bottomlands, uplands, as well as in the displacement of entire tribal communities. Ultimately, the Pick-Sloan Program dams and reservoirs flooded about 356,254 acres of tribal lands and forced the 

relocation of more than 900 Indian families. 

Impacts to the seven Indian tribes 

Although each of the seven tribes suffered severely and in different ways from the Pick-Sloan Program, the experience of the 

Three Affiliated Tribes (Tribes) provides an overview of the kinds 

of impacts common to all seven tribes and their reservations. In 

1946, the Army Corps of Engineers entered the Fort Berthold Reservation, without notice, and began construction of the 212 foothigh Garrison dam with a storage capacity of 24.2 million acre 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

3Michael L. Lawson, Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 

1944–1980 59 (1994). 4Final Report and Recommendations of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee: 

Joint Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, the S. Comm. On Energy and Natural 

Resources, and the H. Comm. On Interior and Insular Affairs, 100th Cong. 11 and 89 (1987) 

(statement of Hans Walker Jr., Former Member, Joint Tribal Advisory Committee, and written 

statement of Edward Lone Fight, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes). 5Michael L. Lawson, Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 

1944–1980 60 (1994). 6 Id. at 59. 7 Id. 

8Final Report and Recommendations of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee: 

Joint Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, the S. Comm. On Energy and Natural 

Resources, and the H. Comm. On Interior and Insular Affairs, 100th Cong. 88 (1987) (written 

statement of Edward Lone Fight, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes). 9 Id. at 89. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12Michael L. Lawson, Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 

1944–1980 60 (1994). 13Final Report and Recommendations of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee: 

Joint Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, the S. Comm. On Energy and Natural 

Resources, and the H. Comm. On Interior and Insular Affairs, 100th Cong. 90–91 (1987) (written 

statement of Edward Lone Fight, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes); Michael L. Lawson, 

Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944–1980 60 (1994). 14Michael L. Lawson, Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 

1944–1980 60 (1994). 

feet.3 The federal government’s message to the Tribes was that the 

construction of the dam and the displacement of the Tribes were 

inevitable.4 The Tribes offered other sites for the dam, but the 

Army Corps surveyors selected the site that would flood the greatest amount of the Tribes’ land.5 At the same time, upstream impacts to a non-Indian city and a federal irrigation project were 

avoided by adjustments to the specifications of the project.6

Once completed, the dam flooded one-fourth of the reservation, 

separated the reservation into five segments that were isolated by 

the reservoir, and flooded 94 percent of the Tribes’ agricultural 

lands.7 In total, the dam flooded about 156,000 acres of the Tribes’ 

lands and forced the relocation of 480 families, or about 90 percent 

of the Tribes’ membership.8 The reservoir also flooded the economic 

base that had sustained the Tribes.9 The flooded bottomlands included fertile alluvial soils, natural shelter for livestock, coal deposits, standing timber, seasonal fruits, juneberries, choke cherries, 

habitat for wild game, and clean water supplies.10 Community infrastructure, including homes, a hospital, and churches, were also 

flooded.11

By 1947, although the Pick-Sloan Program has already been authorized and construction of Garrison dam was underway, the 

Tribes, which had been given little to no notice of these actions, did 

not willingly leave their lands. Instead, though in a severely disadvantaged position, the Tribes entered into negotiations with the 

federal government for a replacement reservation.12 The Tribes initially secured an agreement with the U.S. for a replacement reservation, but no other reservation with suitable bottomlands could 

be found.13 With no opportunity for suitable replacement lands, the 

Tribes accepted a Congressional offer of approximately $5 million 

in compensation.14 The legislation providing this compensation also 

allowed the Tribes to pursue further compensation. After the 

Tribes’ obtained a private appraisal showing a much greater value 

for the taken lands, Congress provided approximately $7 million in 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

15 Id. at 61. 16 Id. at 60–61. 17Final Report and Recommendations of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee: 

Joint Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, the S. Comm. On Energy and Natural 

Resources, and the H. Comm. On Interior and Insular Affairs, 100th Cong. 94–95 (1987) (written 

statement of Edward Lone Fight, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes). 18 Id. at 11 and 93 (statement of Hans Walker Jr., Former Member, Joint Tribal Advisory 

Committee, and written statement of Edward Lone Fight, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes). 19 Id. at 11 (statement of Hans Walker Jr., Former Member, Joint Tribal Advisory Committee). 20 Id. 21 Act of July 31, 1947, Pub. L. No. 80–296, 61 Stat. 686, 690; H.R.J. Res. 33, Pub L. No. 81– 

437, 63 Stat. 1026 (1949); Act of July 6, 1954, Pub. L. No. 83–478, 68 Stat. 452; Act of Sept. 

3, 1954, Pub. L. No. 83–776, 68 Stat. 1191; Act of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85–915, 72 Stat. 

1762; Act of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85–916, 72 Stat. 1766 (1958); Act of Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. 

L. No. 85–923, 72 Stat. 1773; Act of Oct. 3, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87–734, 76 Stat. 698; Act of Oct. 

3, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87–735, 76 Stat. 704. 

additional compensation.15 While a total of about $12 million was 

provided, it was anticipated that this amount would compensate 

the Tribes for their flooded lands, fund relocation and reconstruction expenses, and also be used to promote the economic recovery 

of the Tribes.16 However, in the end, most of the funding was needed to meet the basic needs of tribal members.17

Relocated to the upland plains, the Tribes were supposed to carry 

on as they had before. However, the remaining reservation lands 

were less suitable for sustaining the Tribes’ economic base, including ranching and agriculture, due to poor soil and water quality, 

and a lack of infrastructure investments.18 The upland plains also 

provided less shelter from the weather of the Great Plains. In the 

bottomlands there was natural shelter and logs for home construction, but in the uplands frame homes were exposed to the weather 

and had electricity costs ranging from $600 to $800 a month.19

Even with these new high electric costs, promises to compensate 

the Tribes, in part, with discounted electricity went unfulfilled.20

No plan for just or adequate compensation 

The Flood Control Act of 1944 did not set out a plan for compensating the seven Indian tribes or a process for acquiring the tribal 

lands needed to develop the Pick-Sloan Program. Federal compensation ultimately came in two phases. First, from the late 

1940’s to 1962, the tribes individually negotiated with various representatives of the Federal government and Congress for compensation from the impacts of the Pick-Sloan Program.21 During 

this phase, individual Indian landowners also received some compensation for their lands that were flooded. However, similar to the 

tribes, negotiations were often undertaken after dam construction 

had already begun, and compensation varied, was inadequate, or 

lacked records of actual disbursement. 

In the second phase, from 1985 until 2002, the tribes individually, and sometimes in groups, sought additional compensation 

from Congress. Additional compensation was obtained for a variety 

of reasons, but the primary reason was the inadequacy of the original negotiations and compensation. For example, in most cases, negotiations regarding compensation for the taking of lands, relocation, reconstruction, and rehabilitation did not take place until 

after the Army Corps of Engineers had already begun construction 

on the dams. 

The second round of compensation began in 1985 with the establishment of the Joint Tribal Advisory Commission (JTAC). The 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

22 Act of July 16, 1985, § 207, Pub. L. No. 98–360, 98 Stat. 411. 23Fort Berthold and Standing Rock Equitable Compensation Program, North Dakota, Pub. L. 

No. 102–575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992); 24 Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 

104–223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996); Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust 

Fund Act, Pub. L. No. 105–132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable 

Compensation Act, Pub. L. No. 106–511, title I, 114 Stat. 2365 (2000); and Yankton Sioux and 

Santee Sioux Tribes Equitable Compensation Act, Pub. L. No. 107–331, title II, 116 Stat. 2834, 

2838 (2002). 25 Impact of the Flood Control Act of 1944 on Indians Tribes Along the Missouri River: Hearing 

Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, 110th Cong. 3–4 (1987) (statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office); See also U.S. 

Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–08–249T, Damages and Compensation for Tribes at Seven Reservations Affected by Dams on the Missouri River (2007). 26 Id. at 13–14, 17–18 (written statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment, Government Accountability Office). 27 Id. at 7. 

JTAC was developed based on the recommendation of the Garrison 

Diversion Unit Commission established by the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriation Act of 1985.22 JTAC was formed to examine and make recommendations with respect to the effects of the 

impoundment of water behind the Garrison and Oahe Dams on the 

Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Ultimately, the JTAC recommendations resulted in Congressional acts 

providing additional compensation to these two tribes.23 In subsequent years, Congress passed acts providing additional compensation to the other five tribes whose lands were flooded by the PickSloan Program.24 In total, fourteen acts of Congress were passed 

in an attempt to provide the tribes with adequate compensation 

over almost 60 years. Unfortunately, each negotiation and act of 

Congress varied according to the historical time period, different 

valuation methods, and the ability of individual tribes to obtain 

legislation or pursue litigation. 

Comprehensive resolution 

Despite efforts to compensate the tribes for the flooding of their 

lands by the Pick-Sloan Program, questions remain about the adequacy, fairness, and completeness of the compensation.25 Some 

tribes have been compensated at different per acre rates than other 

tribes; some tribes received ‘‘rehabilitation funds’’ while others did 

not; some tribes assert that their lands were not properly valued; 

and some promises of compensation remain unfulfilled.26

In her written testimony provided to the Committee on November 2007, Robin Nazzaro, Director of Natural Resources and Environment for the Government Accountability Office, stated that, 

‘‘more than 45 years after the last original compensation bill was 

enacted and almost 5 years after the last additional compensation 

bill was enacted, lingering questions remain about various aspects 

of the tribes’ compensation.’’ 27 The Pick-Sloan Tribal Commission 

Act is intended to resolve these questions by establishing a Commission to study the past compensation and make recommendations for full and final compensation for all seven Indian tribes. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

In the 110th Congress, on November 1, 2007, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing regarding the ongoing impacts from the Pick-Sloan Program on the Indian tribes whose 

lands were flooded by the Pick-Sloan Program. In the 111th Congress, on July 26, 2010, Senator Dorgan introduced S. 3648, the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

Pick-Sloan Tribal Commission Act of 2010. Senators Thune, 

Conrad, and Johnson are original cosponsors. S. 3648 was referred 

to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On November 18, 2010, the 

Committee approved S. 3648 with a substitute amendment offered 

by Senator Dorgan. 

A companion bill, H.R. 6100, was introduced in the House of Representatives on August 10, 2010, by Congressman Pomeroy. Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin is an original cosponsor. H.R. 6100 

was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 

SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT

During an open business meeting on November 18, 2010, the 

Committee considered and approved an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to S. 3648. Like the original bill, the amendment in 

the nature of the substitute would establish a commission to conduct a study and provide recommendations to the President and 

the Congress for a comprehensive resolution of impacts to seven Indian tribes caused by the Pick-Sloan Program on the Missouri 

River. As in the original bill, the substitute amendment outlines 

the functions and requirements of the Commission, including: the 

manner in which Commission members are to be appointed; the 

structure of the Commission; the requirement for individual Commission members to have certain expertise; the minimum number 

of hearings the Commission must hold; the requirement for a Commission website; the issues that are to be studied by the Commission; the requirements for the report that the Commission is to 

issue; the timeframe in which the report is to be submitted; and 

the administrative functions of the Commission. 

The substitute amendment includes two new subsections regarding impacts to individual landowners, clarifications regarding how 

the Commission will be funded, and a variety of technical changes. 

Technical changes include clarifying that the Commission may 

make rules to govern its proceedings, providing travel reimbursement for witnesses who appear before the Commission, clarifying 

the quorum requirements of the Commission, and renumbering of 

the bill’s sections. 

The two new provisions regarding impacts to individual landowners are sections 4(b)(3) and (b)(5)(B)(ii). These new provisions 

would allow the Commission, if it chooses, to study and make recommendations regarding reservation lands owned by individual 

tribal members that were impacted by the Pick-Sloan Program. Individual landowners were provided compensation originally, but, 

similar to the compensation provided to the tribes, the amounts 

provided to individuals varied, was inadequate, or lacked records of 

actual disbursement. The Commission is not required to study and 

make recommendations regarding individual landowners, because 

the Commission may find that these issues need separate study. 

The substitute also clarifies how the Commission will be funded 

by deleting text in the introduced bill that allowed the Commission 

to be funded by ‘‘such sums as are necessary’’ and through transfers of funding from the Secretary of the Interior and Army. The 

substitute amendment provides new text for the funding section 

that simply allows the Secretary of Interior to fund the Commission with up to $2.5 million of unobligated amounts already made 

available to the Secretary. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 3642 AS AMENDED

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides the short title of S. 3648 as the ‘‘Pick-Sloan 

Tribal Commission Act of 2010.’’ 

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 provides ten Congressional findings and provides historical background to S. 3648. In summary, the ten findings and 

background are as follows: 

(1) The Pick-Sloan Program was originally authorized by the 

Flood Control Act of 1944. It was approved to promote the general 

economic development of the United States; to provide for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa; to protect urban and rural areas from 

devastating floods of the Missouri River; and for other purposes. 

(2) The United States acquired approximately 1,422,000 acres of 

land in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska to build 

mainstem Missouri River dams at Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort 

Randall, and Gavin’s Point, and to create reservoirs behind the 

dams named Lake Sakakawea, Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, Lake 

Francis Case, and Lewis and Clark Lake. 

(3) To create the dams and reservoirs described in paragraph (2), 

the United States took title to land located on the reservations of 

7 Indian tribes (but did not diminish the reservations), including 

the taking of approximately— 

(A) 156,000 acres from the Fort Berthold Reservation; 

(B) 55,994 acres from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation; 

(C) 104,420 acres from the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation; 

(D) 22,955 acres from the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation; 

(E) 15,565 acres from the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation; 

(F) 3,252 acres from the Yankton Sioux Reservation; and 

(G) 1,007 acres from the Santee Sioux Reservation. 

(4) The water impounded by the Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort 

Randall, and Gavin’s Point dams of the Pick-Sloan Program flooded 

the most fertile and wooded bottom land of the 7 Indian tribes and 

their reservations. That land constituted the most productive agricultural, hunting, and collecting land of those Indian tribes, and 

the majority of the community infrastructure of each Indian tribe 

was also located on the land. 

(5) The flooding of the tribes’ productive land greatly damaged 

the economy and cultural resources of the 7 Indian tribes. 

(6) Although the 7 Indian tribes reside on the Missouri River, the 

economic benefits of the Pick-Sloan Program have not been passed 

on to those Indian tribes. Instead, the dams have created disproportionate hardships for the 7 Indian tribes, including poor 

water quality; increased trespassing and theft or damage to cultural resources; artificial sediment deposits that impact water infrastructure and contain unknown contaminants; harming fisheries, including loss of reservoir retention time; damage to riparian 

habitat; and increased recreational traffic and impacts, but with 

few opportunities to regulate or benefit from recreational uses. 

(7) Congress held a number of hearings and promoted studies of 

the impacts to the 7 Indian tribes, pursuant to which representaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR357.XXX SR357

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
8 

tives of the 7 Indian tribes testified on impacts to tribal economies, 

health, and welfare from the flooding of that land. 

(8) Congress has established prior commissions to study and 

make recommendations regarding impacts of the Pick-Sloan Program, including the Garrison Diversion Unit Commission established under section 207(c)(1) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1985 (Public Law 98–360; 98 Stat. 411), 

which recommended that a Joint Tribal Advisory Committee be 

formed to examine and make recommendations with respect to the 

effects of the impoundment of water behind the Garrison and Oahe 

Dams. The Joint Tribal Advisory Committee was established by the 

Secretary of the Interior on May 10, 1985, for the purpose of assessing the impacts of the Garrison and Oahe Dams on the Three 

Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The Committee delivered a final report to the Secretary on May 23, 1986. 

In 1992, Congress passed the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act (title XXXV of Public Law 102–575; 106 Stat. 4731) to address certain findings of the 

Committee. A number of the findings of the Committee still have 

not been addressed as of enactment of this Act. 

(9) Before enactment of this Act, Congress provided compensation 

to the 7 Indian tribes for the land taken from the 7 Indian tribes 

over a 55-year period. On 17 different occasions, as part of 14 different Acts of Congress, compensation was authorized for the 7 Indian tribes, and at least 1 of the 7 Indian tribes also received compensation through a court case. 

(10) A single comprehensive bill is needed to resolve and finally 

settle the claims of the 7 Indian tribes because past compensation: 

was provided at different levels and was based on different compensation methods, depending on the historical time period during 

which the compensation was provided; and resulted in each of the 

7 Indian tribes being compensated differently. 

Section 3. Definitions 

Section 3 lists pertinent definitions used throughout the bill. 

Section 4. Pick-Sloan Tribal Commission for Comprehensive Resolution 

Section 4(a)(1) establishes the Pick-Sloan Tribal Commission for 

Comprehensive Resolution. 

Section 4(a)(2) describes the membership of the Commission. The 

membership must be composed of 7 members, of whom 1 must be 

the Chairperson of the Commission; at least 1 must have expertise 

in the field of Indian law and policy; at least 1 must have expertise 

in the operation and history of Federal water projects; at least 1 

must have expertise in the area of environmental justice; at least 

1 must be an economist; and at least 1 must be an authority in cultural preservation. 

Section 4(a)(2) also provides that of the 7 members selected for 

the Commission, at least 3 must be members of federally recognized Indian tribes. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the 

Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Chairperson 

and Ranking Member of the Committee on Natural Resources of 

the House of Representatives must select the 7 Commission memVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR357.XXX SR357

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
9 

bers and appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the 

Commission. 

Section 4(a)(2) also provides that the affected Indian tribes may 

make recommendations to the Chairperson of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Chairperson of the Committee 

on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives regarding 

members of the Commission. All members of the Commission must 

be appointed not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

Section 4(a)(3) describes the term and vacancy provisions of the 

Commission. A member is appointed for the life of the Commission. 

A vacancy on the Commission must not affect the powers of the 

Commission and must be filled in the same manner as the original 

appointment was made. 

Section 4(a)(4) provides that no later than 30 days after the date 

on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the 

Commission must hold the initial meeting of the Commission. 

Section 4(a)(5) states that the Commission must meet at the call 

of the Chairperson. 

Section 4(a)(6) provides the quorum requirements for the Commission. A majority of the members of the Commission constitute 

a quorum. A quorum must be necessary for the Commission to 

carry out any of the duties or responsibilities of the Commission 

under this Act. 

Section 4(a)(7) allows the Commission to establish, by majority 

vote, rules for the conduct of Commission business, in accordance 

with this Act and other applicable law. 

Section 4(a)(8) clarifies that the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the Commission. 

Section 4(b) sets forth the duties of the Commission. Section 

4(b)(1) requires that in carrying out this section, the Commission 

must consult with the affected Indian tribes. 

Section 4(b)(2) describes a study to be conducted by the Commission. With respect to the period beginning on the date of commencement of the Pick-Sloan Program and ending on the date on 

which the study is initiated, the study must examine the impacts 

on the affected Indian tribes, directly or indirectly, caused by the 

Pick-Sloan Program and measures implemented by the Federal 

Government to attempt to address those impacts; other measures 

that have been proposed to address the impacts on the affected Indian tribes caused by the Pick-Sloan Program; the results of any 

other studies regarding those impacts and potential solutions to the 

impacts, including any studies conducted by the Joint Tribal Advisory Committee relating to the Pick-Sloan Program; and comparisons involving other situations in which Federal hydroelectric 

projects or federally licensed hydroelectric projects have resulted in 

the taking or occupation of Indian land and the compensation, or 

other measures, Indian tribes have been or are being provided in 

those situations. 

Section 4(b)(3) allows the Commission to also study the impacts 

caused by the Pick-Sloan Program to land (including land allotted 

under any Federal law) that is: owned by members of an affected 

Indian tribe (or the heirs of those members); and is on the reservation of the affected Indian tribe. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
10 

Section 4(b)(4) states that in carrying out paragraph (b)(2) and, 

if applicable, paragraph (b)(3), the Commission must hold at least 

3 hearings to receive information from Federal agencies, Indian 

tribes, and other interested parties regarding the resolution of 

Pick-Sloan Program impacts. A witness requested to appear before 

the Commission must be paid the same fees and allowances as are 

paid to witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States 

Code. The per diem and mileage allowances for a witness under 

clause (i) must be paid from funds made available to the Commission. A hearing under this paragraph must be open to the public. 

For each hearing under this paragraph, the Commission must compile a record consisting of transcripts, written testimony, studies, 

and other information presented at the hearing and include the 

record in the report of the Commission required under paragraph 

(b)(6), as an appendix in electronic format. 

Section 4(b)(5) provides that based on the results of the study 

under paragraph (b)(2), any study under paragraph (b)(3), and 

hearings under paragraph (b)(4), the Commission must develop a 

proposal to comprehensively resolve the impacts resulting from the 

Pick-Sloan Program. The proposal must include: a comprehensive 

proposal to provide full and final compensation to the affected Indian tribes; a description of the measures referred to in paragraph 

(2) that have not been implemented; could be implemented; or 

should be implemented in a more effective manner; measures that 

could be accomplished administratively; measures that would require legislation to be implemented; and any other measures necessary to comprehensively resolve the impacts of the Pick-Sloan 

Program on the affected Indian tribes. 

Section 4(b)(5) also provides that the proposal may also include 

measures to resolve the impacts to land (including land allotted 

under any Federal law) that is owned by members of an affected 

Indian tribe (or the heirs of those members); and is on the reservation of the affected Indian tribe. 

Section 4(b)(6) provides the deadline and required contents for 

the Commission’s Report. It states that subject to subparagraph 

(b)(6)(B), not later than 18 months after the date on which the first 

meeting of the Commission takes place, the Commission must submit to the President and Congress a report that contains: (i) a detailed statement of the study findings and conclusions of the Commission; and (ii) the proposal of the Commission developed under 

paragraph (b)(5) for legislation and administrative actions that the 

Commission considers to be appropriate to comprehensively resolve 

the impacts caused by the Pick-Sloan Program. 

Section 4(b)(6) also provides that this deadline may be extended 

for a period of not more than 180 days if the Commission submits 

to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a request for the extension that is received by the Committees before 

the deadline described above and includes a description of the reasons why the extension is needed. 

Section 4(b)(7) requires that the Commission maintain a website 

for the period beginning on the date on which the first meeting of 

the Commission takes place and ending on the termination date of 

the Commission. The Commission must use the website: (i) to describe the activities of the Commission; (ii) to provide access to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR357.XXX SR357

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
11 

formation studied by the Commission; (iii) to provide notice of, and 

make available all information presented at, hearings of the Commission; and (iv) to post the report (including all appendices to that 

report) of the Commission required under paragraph (b)(6). All content on the website must be collected on compact disk, digital video 

disk, or other appropriate digital media; and included in the report 

to be submitted under paragraph (b)(6). 

Section 4(c) permits the Commission to hold such hearings, meet 

and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive 

such evidence as the Commission considers to be advisable to carry 

out this Act. The Commission may also secure directly from a Federal agency such information as the Commission considers to be 

necessary to carry out this Act. On request of the Chairperson of 

the Commission, the head of an applicable Federal agency must 

provide the information to the Commission. The Commission may 

use the United States mails in the same manner and under the 

same conditions as other agencies of the Federal Government. The 

Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of 

services or property. 

Section 4(d) describes Commission personnel matters. Section 

(d)(1) provides that each member of the Commission be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate 

of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 

section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including 

travel time) during which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the Commission. 

Section 4(d)(2) states that each member of the Commission must 

be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away 

from the home or regular place of business of the member in the 

performance of the duties of the Commission. 

Section 4(d)(3) provides that the Chairperson of the Commission 

may, without regard to the civil service laws (including regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 

additional personnel as are necessary to enable the Commission to 

perform the duties of the Commission. Also, the employment of an 

executive director must be subject to confirmation by a quorum of 

the Commission. Except as provided in subparagraph (d)(3)(B), the 

Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of the executive director and other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 

United States Code, relating to classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates. The rate of pay for the executive director 

and other personnel cannot exceed the rate payable for level IV of 

the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States 

Code. Also, an employee of the Federal Government may be detailed to serve as staff for the Commission without reimbursement. 

The detail of the employee must be without interruption or loss of 

civil service status or privilege. 

Section 4(d)(4) allows the Commission to request the Secretary of 

Defense to provide, and the Secretary of Defense must provide, 

through human resource departments under the jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of Defense, on a reimbursable basis, operational support 

for activities of the Commission. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
12 

Section 4(d)(5) gives the Commission the option, to such extent 

and using such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, to 

enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge the duties of the Commission under this Act. 

Section 4(d)(6) notes that notwithstanding section 1342 of title 

31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and use such 

voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission determines to be necessary. 

Section 4(d)(7) allows the Chairperson of the Commission to procure temporary and intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals 

that do not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic 

pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 

5316 of that title. 

Section 4(e) requires that the Commission terminate 90 days 

after the date on which the Commission submits the report of the 

Commission under subsection (b)(6). 

Section 5. Funding 

Section 5 provides that subject to the approval of the appropriate 

committees of Congress, out of any unobligated amounts made 

available to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary may use to 

carry out this Act not more than $2,500,000. 

Section 6. Savings clause 

Section 6 provides that nothing in this Act diminishes, changes, 

or otherwise affects (1) the water rights of the affected Indian 

tribes; (2) any other right (including treaty rights) of the affected 

Indian tribes; (3) the status of Indian reservation land or the 

boundaries of any reservation of an Indian tribe; or (4) any Congressional authorization of appropriations for the benefit of the affected Indian tribes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

In an open business meeting on November 18, 2010, the Committee on Indian Affairs, by voice vote, adopted S. 3648, with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, and ordered the bill reported to the Senate, with the recommendation that the Senate do 

pass S. 3648, as amended. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

S. 3648—Pick-Sloan Tribal Commission Act of 2010 

S. 3648 would authorize the Department of the Interior (DOI) to spend $2.5 million of unobligated balances from funds already appropriated to the department to establish the Pick-Sloan Tribal 

Commission. The commission would recommend actions to resolve 

certain disputes between the federal government and several Indian tribes. Enacting S. 3648 would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that 

there would be no net effect on direct spending over the 2011–2020 

period. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues. 

Because the legislation would authorize the Secretary to use 

funds already appropriated for other activities to establish the commission, CBO estimates that implementing S. 3648 would increase 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
13 

direct spending by $2.5 million over the 2011–2012 period and reduce such spending by that amount in 2015 when those funds 

would have otherwise been spent. If DOI still carries out the activities for which those funds were originally appropriated, implementing the bill would require an appropriation of $2.5 million in 

2015 to replace the funds used to establish the commission. 

S. 3648 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct 

spending or revenues. S. 3648 would increase direct spending over 

the 2011–2012 period and decrease it in 2015, resulting in no net 

effect on direct spending over the 2011–2020 period. The net budgetary changes that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are 

shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 3648, THE PICK-SLOAN TRIBAL COMMISSION ACT OF 2010, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS ON NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2011– 

2015 

2011– 

2020 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ............... 2 1 0 0 ¥3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has not received any Executive Communications 

regarding S. 3648. 

REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying 

out the bill. The Committee believes that the regulatory and paperwork impact of S. 3648 will be minimal. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that the enactment of S. 

3648 will not make any changes in existing law. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS