    [Senate Hearing 112-626]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-626

                          S. 356, S. 908, AND S. 1739

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

        S. 356, A BILL TO AMEND THE GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT TO MAKE
                 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    S. 908, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO
           THE RESERVATION OF THE SILETZ TRIBE IN THE STATE OF OREGON

      S. 1739, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT
      FUNDS AWARDED TO THE MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE BY THE UNITED STATES
      COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS IN DOCKET NUMBERS 19 AND 188, AND FOR OTHER
                                    PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 2, 2012

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    75-372                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                       DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    KENT CONRAD, North Dakota            LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
          Loretta A. Tuell, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
         David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on February 2, 2012.................................     1
    Statement of Senator Akaka.......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     1
    Statement of Senator Barrasso....................................    43
    Statement of Senator Franken.....................................     2
    Statement of Senator Merkley.....................................     3

                                   Witnesses

    Deschampe, Hon. Norman W., President, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe...     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Garcia, Hon. Robert, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower
      Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians.....................................    36
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Kennedy, Hon. Cheryle, Tribal Council Chairwoman, Confederated
      Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon..................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    LaRose, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.........     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Pigsley, Hon. Delores, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz
      Indians, Oregon................................................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27

                                    Appendix

    Anderson, Marge, Chief Executive, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
      Indians, prepared statement....................................    53
    Black, Mike S., Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
      Department of the Interior, prepared statement.................    49
    Fry, Hon. Donald L., Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Lower
      Rogue, prepared statement......................................    59
    Leecy, Hon. Kevin W., (Chairman) and David C. Morrison, Sr.
      (Secretary-Treasurer), Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, prepared
      statement......................................................    56
    Vizenor, Hon. Erma J., Chairwoman, White Earth Tribal Nation,
      prepared statement.............................................    57
    Wilkinson, Charles, Distinguished Professor/Moses Lasky Professor
      of Law, University of Colorado, prepared statement.............    58

                          S. 356, S. 908, AND S. 1739

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:53 p.m. in room
    628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        Aloha, and I want to start by thanking all of you for being
    with us today and staying while the 18 votes were completed. I
    wanted to do this hearing anyway, and I am glad you are patient
    enough to be here.
        The fact that all the Tribal leaders stayed with us despite
    the long delays highlights how important these bills are to
    each of the Tribes and their members.
        For purposes of hearing from all of the witnesses in a
    timely manner, my full opening statement will be entered into
    the record. The views of the Department of the Interior will
    also be entered into the official record. I encourage any other
    interested parties to submit written comments to the Committee.
    And the hearing record will remain open for two weeks.
        I know my good friends and colleagues, Senators Franken,
    Merkley and Wyden have done a significant amount of work on
    these bills. I look forward to working with all of them as we
    move these bills through Congress.
        Again, I want to welcome Senator Merkley. Let me welcome
    also my good friend and member of the Committee Senator Al
    Franken, and ask for any comments he may have at this time.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator From Hawaii

        Aloha! Today the Committee will hold a legislative hearing on three
    bills dealing with issues of great importance to the Tribes involved.
        We are all aware that prior federal policies often resulted in
    significant land and resource losses for Tribes. The bills we will
    consider today seek to restore some of those losses and make sure
    Tribes are adequately compensated for those losses and ensure Tribal
    land bases are restored.
        The first bill S. 1739, the ``Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment
    Fund Distribution Act of 2011'' would distribute settlement funds to
    the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Senator Franken introduced this bill and
    I am certain he will have more to say about it in his opening
    statement.
        The other bills we will hear about today would streamline the land
    into trust process for two restored Oregon Tribes so they can better
    provide for the housing, education, and infrastructure needs of their
    members.
        I know that my good friends and colleagues Senators Merkley and
    Wyden have done a significant amount of work on these bills. I look
    forward to working with them and Senator Franken as we move these bills
    through Congress.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing. I introduced the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
    Judgment Fund Distribution Act with my friend and colleague
    from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar. This legislation will
    finally allow for distribution of funds owed to the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe.
        It has been a long road getting to this point. The
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe first filed a claim before the Indian
    Claims Commission in 1948. Their claims were finally settled in
    1999. For over 60 years, members of the Minesota Chippewa have
    been waiting for these funds, and it is time to get this done.
        The United States Court of Federal Claims awarded $20
    million to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. This money is to
    compensate Tribal members for the improper taking and sale of
    land and timber under the Nelson Act of 1889. The Federal
    Government owes the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe this money. In
    fact, in 1999, the $20 million settlement was deposited in a
    trust fund account for the Minnesota Chippewa at the Department
    of the Interior, where it has been since collecting 1 percent
    interest.
        The Tribal members in my home State of Minnesota have never
    received a dime. And that is because before any money can go to
    the Tribe, Congress must pass legislation detailing how to
    allocate the funds between the six bands that make up the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. My bill does just that. It will
    provide $300 to each Tribal member and then allocates the
    remaining funds equally to each of the six bands.
        My bill reflects the distribution plan that was agreed upon
    by the Tribe through its sovereign, democratic processes. Under
    the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal constitution, the Tribe is
    governed by an executive committee. This is a democratic body
    comprised of two elected officials from each of the Tribe's
    bands.
        The Tribal executive committee voted ten to two in favor of
    this distribution plan. One band, Leech Lake, voted against.
    And its esteemed chairman, Archie LaRose, is here today to
    testify. I am sympathetic to their concerns and I sincerely
    hoped that a consensus agreement could have been reached.
    However, I deeply respect Tribal sovereignty and therefore
    believe we must respect the decision of the Tribal executive
    committee of the Minnesota Chippewa.
        I also worry that any further delay will only cause
    hardship for individual Tribal members. The thousands of Tribal
    members across Minnesota cannot afford to wait another decade.
    It is time for Congress to act to allow for the distribution of
    the funds owed to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. We
    have so many members of the Tribes who have come here, and I am
    so sorry that we had all those votes in the chamber and we got
    started so late. I am sure you made mention of that at the
    beginning of this hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses
    for coming today and I look forward to your testimony.
        I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
        Now I welcome Senator Merkley of Oregon to speak on the
    bills impacting the Siletz and Grande Ronde Tribes. Thank you
    for being patient, too, Senator Merkley. Please proceed with
    your testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this hearing. I would also like to recognize the staff
    of the Indian Affairs Committee for their hard work on these
    issues.
        We have coming before the Committee this evening Chair
    Kennedy, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community,
    Chair Pigsley, of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians
    of Oregon, and Chair Garcia of the Confederated Tribes of the
    Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. I am delighted that
    they can all be here to share their thoughts directly with the
    Committee.
        I appreciate that the Committee is considering Senate Bill
    356 and Senate Bill 908, both of which I have co-sponsored.
    They address a fundamental issue facing Indian Tribes, that is,
    ensuring that Tribal communities are able to successfully
    secure their own future through the expansion of their Tribal
    reservations.
        The story of the people who comprise the Confederated
    Tribes of the Grand Ronde and the people who comprise the
    Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians is a difficult story
    to tell, a complicated story. But it is one that has been and
    continues to be inspiring. Like many other communities in
    Oregon and the Pacific Northwest, the bands of Indians that
    make up the two Confederated Tribes suffered through decades
    upon decades of broken treaties, failed promises and neglect on
    the part of the Federal Government. Ultimately, the Federal
    Government terminated the trust status of both Tribes.
        It was only through very hard work on the part of the
    groups themselves and some representatives in Congress that led
    to Congress restoring and reestablishing the trust relationship
    with the Tribes. And in this case, I want to particularly thank
    Senator Hatfield, who served in this body for 30 years, and I
    had the privilege of serving as an intern to him and saw how
    hard he worked on behalf of fairness and restoring the trust
    relationships.
        In the years since restoration, both Tribes have worked to
    rebuild their communities. Of course, a critical piece of
    rebuilding includes the purchase of land for the expansion of
    the reservations. Unfortunately, as this Committee knows well,
    the current process that a Tribe must follow to restore land to
    a reservation is not an easy process and has not worked well
    for these two Tribes. As the Committee will hear during
    testimony this afternoon, the current process is not only
    cumbersome and expensive for the Tribes to follow, it also will
    often take years and years for the land which is owned by the
    Tribe to be formally added and recognized as part of the
    reservation.
        I firmly believe that the two bills before this Committee
    simplify the process and should receive favorable
    consideration. I certainly look forward to reviewing the
    testimony of all the leaders who have gathered this afternoon,
    and I certainly appreciate that three leaders from Oregon can
    come to share their thoughts. I thank all of you for your
    commitment to improving the current fee to trust process and
    your participation in this evening's hearing.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I thank you again,
    Senator Merkley, for your participation in this hearing. Thank
    you.
        I would like to now invite the first panel to the witness
    table. Serving our first panel is the Honorable Norman
    Deschampe, President of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe; the
    Honorable Arthur LaRose, Chairman of the Leech Lake Band of
    Ojibwe; the Honorable Cheryle Kennedy, Chairwoman of the
    Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community; the Honorable
    Delores Pigsley, Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz
    Indians; and the Honorable Robert Garcia, Chairman of the
    Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw
    Indians.
        Welcome, everyone, and thank you so much for your patience.
    Mr. Deschampe, please proceed with your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN W. DESCHAMPE, PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA
                             CHIPPEWA TRIBE

        Mr. Deschampe. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and members of the
    Committee. My name is Norman Deschampe, I am President of the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as well as Chairman of the Grand
    Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
        I am here in support of S. 1739, a bill that would provide
    for the use and distribution of the funds awarded to the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United
    States, Dockets Nos. 19 and 188, United States Court of Federal
    Claims.
        Also with me are Chairman Leecy from the Bois Forte
    Reservation, Chief Executive Marge Anderson from Mille Lacs,
    Chairman Visinor from White Earth, and Chairman Diver had to
    leave. So they are here also.
        I support S. 1739 because it provides for the distribution
    of funds being held in trust for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
    in the manner determined by the Tribal Executive Committee of
    the Tribe. I also support it because it is a just way to
    allocate the funds.
        Pursuant to the Revised Constitution and Bylaws of the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, the governing body of the Tribe is
    the Tribal Executive Committee. The Minnesota Chippewa was a
    plaintiff in the cases known as the Nelson Act Claims. I think
    it is important for you to know that all of the decisions about
    the claims were made by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Executive
    Committee. The Tribal Executive Committee decided to bring the
    claims, it decided the strategy for the claims, and it also
    decided to settle the claims. And when we needed money to
    pursue the claims, it was the Tribal Executive Committee that
    borrowed the money to make that possible.
        In 1999, the Tribal Executive Committee approved the
    settlement by resolution and again in 1999 the Tribal Executive
    Committee decided to allocate the funds on an equal basis to
    each of the six member reservations. We decided on equal shares
    because each of the Bands had loaned the same amount to the
    Tribe to support the claims effort.
        For years, we have not succeeded in getting the funds
    released. Following a hearing in the House of Representatives
    in 2008 and an apparent stalemate, the Tribal Executive
    Committee once again considered different ways to allocate the
    award. And in October 2009, a resolution approving a new
    distribution plan was enacted. The distribution plan in that
    resolution is reflected in S. 1739 and it effectively provides
    more to the bands with greater populations through the per
    capita payments to members. I believe that the compromise
    adopted by the Tribal Executive Committee should become law so
    that we can finally get the benefit of what was awarded in
    1999.
        The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe appreciate Senator Franken's
    assistance in this matter. He understands that the constitution
    of the Tribe established a governmental structure that
    authorizes the Tribal Executive Committee to make decisions
    that affect the Tribe as a whole. Our constitution specifically
    gives the Tribal Executive Committee authority to allocate
    funds belonging to the Tribe. Article V, Section 1(d) of our
    Constitution provides that the Tribal Executive Committee has
    the power to administer any funds within the control of the
    Tribe and to apportion all funds within its control to the
    various reservations. That is what these fund are, they are
    Tribal funds, and they have been Tribal funds since 1999 when
    they were deposited into a trust account for the Tribe.
        Senator Franken's bill also recognizes that the beneficiary
    of the claims award is the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. The bill
    acknowledges what the Tribal Executive Committee knew from the
    very beginning, that we were going to bring the claim as the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and that we would decide how to
    allocate any recovery.
        We need these funds released now. It has been too long and
    our members are constantly asking about the Nelson Act claims.
    In addition, a small part of the distribution plan in S. 1739
    is that the Tribal government can be reimbursed the expenses it
    has incurred. This is important, because the Tribe has carried
    that amount on its books and the result has been a negative
    balance on our account. Our auditors have made it an issue and
    we have had to borrow to stay above water. Perhaps the Federal
    Government can do that, but we cannot. Just two weeks ago, the
    Tribe was denied a $25,000 grant for a program for elders
    because of that audit issue. As I said, it is time to get these
    fund distributed.
        Finally, I want you to know that the Tribal leadership has
    carefully considered Leech Lake's argument that it should
    receive 68.9 percent of the award because it suffered that
    amount of the damages. Chairman Goggleye made that argument in
    his testimony before the House Resources Committee on June 5,
    2008, and Chairman LaRose has made that same argument time
    after time before the Tribal Executive Committee. The problem
    with that argument is that it is based only on speculation and
    not on any court findings. My written testimony explains the
    problems with Leech Lake's claim in full detail, but I want to
    make it clear that over nearly 20 years, the Tribe has
    considered all arguments about what is fair, and the result is
    the formula in Senator Franken's bill.
        Our Senators understand that this is a Tribal fund that
    must be allocated in deference to the Tribal government's
    decision. I urge you to join them and pass this bill. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Deschampe follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Norman W. Deschampe, President, Minnesota
                                 Chippewa Tribe

            *Attachments retained in Committee files*

        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Let me call on Chairman LaRose for your testimony. Please
    proceed.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR LaROSE, CHAIRMAN, LEECH LAKE BAND OF
                                 OJIBWE

        Mr. LaRose. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Senator
    Franken. My name is Archie LaRose, I am the Leech Lake
    Reservation Chairman.
        On behalf of my people watching and listening at home, I
    want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. You have
    heard some history behind the settlement. I am here to tell the
    rest of the story. Leech Lake suffered 68.9 percent of the
    damages. S. 1739 does not reflect the harm done to my people.
    That is why we strongly oppose the bill.
        The story starts with the establishment of the Leech Lake
    Reservation. My ancestors entered into a series of treaties and
    executive orders from 1855 to 1874. These treaties promised
    that the reservation would be our permanent home lands forever.
    Back in 1874, our closed reservation consisted of 640,000
    acres. We owned it all. Under the Nelson Act, our reservation
    was cut to less than 40,000 acres.
        According to the map there, this map compares our treaty
    reservation with our reservation today. Our current trust lands
    are highlighted in red. You can barely see them. They total
    less than 30,000 acres. This gives you an idea of the damages
    the Nelson Act inflicted on our reservation.
        I am here today more than a century later to ask the
    Committee to right this wrong and not compound our problem
    under this bill. The bill directs the Secretary to distribute
    the settlement fund based on a proposal by the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe. It does not honor sovereignty; it ignores
    fairness; and it only satisfies the four smaller bands.
        Congress passed the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Act to set
    up an administrative process when there is a disagreement in
    the distribution of settlement funds. The Act takes politics
    out of the equation. This is a court settlement. But unless we
    know who was harmed, Congress is giving settlement funds that
    belong to one Tribe to other Tribes. The BIA did its job under
    the Judgment Fund Act. The BIA studied the case and in 2001,
    found that there is no compelling reason to give preferential
    treatment to the four smaller bands. The four smaller bands
    control the MCT. And they want to collect payment for harm
    suffered by Leech Lake.
        The MCT hired an expert to justify the settlement amount.
    The expert found that Leech Lake suffered 68.9 percent of the
    damages. The amounts of damages for other bands ranged from 1
    percent to 12 percent.
        In 1999, the MCT used this report to advance the
    settlement. MCT now wants to sweep it under the rug. The DOJ
    also filed a property list with the court that the settlement
    is based on. This list shows that most lands from the
    settlement came from the Leech Lake reservation to form the
    Chippewa National Forest. In 1999, the court based the
    settlement on damages. Unfortunately, damages are not even
    considered in the bill before the Committee today.
        Instead of asking who was harmed, the bill looks to an MCT
    resolution that would give bands who suffered as little as 0.9
    percent damages the same share as Leech Lake, who suffered 68.9
    percent of the damages. In addition, Grand Portage, Fond du
    Lac, and Bois Forte relinquished all claims to our lands
    involved in this settlement in the 1854 treaty. Our reservation
    was established long before the MCT was even formed. None of
    our treaty rights were delegated to the MCT. Likewise, the
    Nelson Act and the damages inflicted occurred long before the
    MCT existed.
        Federal courts have also ruled that the MCT acts only in a
    representative capacity. The MCT is not a beneficiary. They
    have no treaties. Federal courts in at least 25 other Nelson
    Act claims made awards to the individual bands based on which
    of the treaty bands had a legal treaty right to the settlement
    funds.
        If Congress is going to ignore the Judgment Funds Act, it
    should at least look to those cases. After 25 courts issued
    judgments based on damages, it makes no sense to now ignore
    damages. We have been trying to negotiate a fair distribution.
    However, if this bill is enacted without a compromise, we will
    bring a lawsuit to stop this unjust distribution. This bill
    doesn't meet judicial scrutiny. It gives the property of Leech
    Lake to the other bands. This clearly violates your
    constitutional responsibilities to protect our Tribal property
    and treaty rights.
        The bill disrespects Leech Lake's sovereignty. It compounds
    the injustice done to our treaties, our lands, and our people.
    In our view, a consensus position is the only way to resolve
    this.
        Thank you for this opportunity. Mii-gwich.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. LaRose follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Arthur LaRose, Chairman, Leech Lake Band of
                                     Ojibwe

            *Attachments retained in Committee files*

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman LaRose.
        Chairwoman Kennedy, would you please proceed with your
    testimony?

     STATEMENT OF HON. CHERYLE KENNEDY, TRIBAL COUNCIL CHAIRWOMAN,
               CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE, OREGON

        Ms. Kennedy. Thank you Chairman Akaka, Senator Franken.
        My name is Cheryle Kennedy, I am the Tribal Chairwoman of
    the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde in Oregon. I appreciate
    your time and for affording me the ability to testify on S.
    356, a bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, to make
    technical corrections and S. 908, a bill to provide for the
    addition of certain real properties to the reservation of the
    Siletz Tribe in Oregon.
        S. 356, Grand Ronde, is a common sense approach to
    streamlining the BIA process for putting land into trust. As
    Senator Merkley articulated, the Tribes of Oregon suffered
    great injustices, including termination, which took all of our
    land holdings. That is the basis for our testimony here.
        In 1983, we were restored, and in 1988, the Tribe pursued
    the goal of securing its sovereignty by acquiring additional
    parcels of its original reservation and providing on-
    reservation jobs and services to Tribal members. Today the
    Tribe owns a total of 12,500 acres, in various lands of either
    some in reservation status or fee or that are in the pile to go
    to be approved for in trust status.
        The Tribe is hampered in its effort to restore land within
    its original reservation by a lengthy and cumbersome Bureau of
    Indian Affairs process. The lands that we are talking about
    here are treated as off-reservation designation, even though
    the lands that we purchased are across from our reservation. It
    means that we go through a more rigorous process of scrutiny,
    of filing plans, and then after even that process is through by
    the BIA, we then have to come back here to Congress to amend
    our Grand Ronde Restoration Act to include those lands into our
    reservation land bases.
        In order to make both the fee in trust to trust and
    reservation designation process less cumbersome, Senator
    Merkley and Senator Wyden introduced S. 356, which would
    establish real property located within the boundaries of the
    Tribe's original reservation. They shall be treated as on-
    reservation land, a very important point, for the purpose of
    processing acquisitions of real property into trust, and deemed
    a part of the Tribe's reservation once taken into trust,
    establish that the Tribe's land held in trust on the date of
    the legislation would automatically become part of the Tribe's
    reservation and correct technical errors in the legal
    descriptions of the parcels included in the Reservation Act.
        House companion legislation, H.R. 726, was introduced by
    Representative Kurt Schrader, Representative Bluemenauer and
    Representative DeFazio. Both S. 356 and H.R. 726 have the
    unanimous support of Polk and Yamhill County Commissioners, the
    two counties affected by this bill.
        In order to streamline this, it would save the Tribe a lot
    of resources and funds. It would also eliminate a lot of the
    time that the Bureau has to spend in processing these
    applications, and of course, the Congressional time for when we
    come back here to change our reservation bill.
        Senate 908, the Siletz legislation, is materially different
    from our bill, to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation. And this
    would significantly infringe on the rights of Grand Ronde and
    other Tribes in western Oregon. S. 908 does nothing to
    streamline or improve the process by which lands are taken into
    trust or given reservation status. In fact, it does the
    opposite. It is precedent-setting and is not good Indian
    policy.
        We support the Siletz' objective of taking land into trust
    in Lincoln County as contained in the Siletz Indian Tribe
    Restoration Act, but not rewriting history to expand the Siletz
    Reservation. I urge the Committee not to proceed with further
    consideration unless these issues are remedied. We do support
    the effort that other Tribes have made in making sure that the
    land into trust process goes well and is streamlined.
        I thank you and I thank my people for putting together and
    standing behind us as we present this bill, in all due respect
    to the Siletz Tribe.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kennedy follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Cheryle Kennedy, Tribal Council Chairwoman,
                  Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon

            *Attachments retained in Committee files*

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kennedy.
        Ms. Pigsley, will you please proceed with your testimony?

       STATEMENT OF HON. DELORES PIGSLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED
                    TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS, OREGON

        Ms. Pigsley. Yes, thank you. My name is Delores Pigsley and
    I am the Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
    in Oregon. I too want to thank the Committee for allowing me to
    testify today in support of S. 908, legislation to designate
    the original 1855 Siletz Reservation as on-reservation for
    purposes of processing our Tribe's fee to trust applications.
        I also want to thank Senators Wyden and Merkley for
    sponsoring this important legislation. This bill has been a
    long time in coming and is sorely needed by the Siletz Tribe to
    fully achieve the restoration that was started in 1977. We have
    submitted written testimony and exhibits, which we ask be made
    part of the record.
        The Siletz Tribe, for 200 years, has survived every
    negative policy thrown at it by the Federal Government. The
    Tribe's history is set out in great detail in Professor Charles
    Wilkinson's recent history of the Siletz Tribe, called The
    People Are Dancing Again. The Tribe is not one single historic
    Tribe; rather, it is a confederation of approximately 30 Tribes
    and bands of Indians covering all of western Oregon. We were
    thrown together under a Federal policy in the 1850s to combine
    as many Tribes as possible on one Reservation.
        The Tribes and bands that make up the Siletz ceded
    approximately 22 million acres in a series of ratified and non-
    ratified treaties, and were moved to a 1.1 million acre
    reservation that stretched over 100 miles along the Oregon
    coast. We have a map to show you what it looks like. All of the
    30 Tribes and bands were moved to the Siletz Reservation by the
    Federal Government. The reservation was slowly taken away by
    executive order, by statute, the Allotment Act, and finally by
    termination in 1954, until the Tribe was left with nothing.
        The Siletz Tribe was restored to Federal recognition by
    Congress in 1977, the second Tribe in the Nation, but without
    any land base. A reservation bill was ultimately passed by
    Congress in 1980 establishing a Siletz reservation. The
    reservation that was established was a modest 3,600 acres of
    scattered timber lands, designed to support Tribal government,
    a Tribal cemetery, and pow-wow grounds. Since that time, the
    Tribe has added more than 800 acres in trust. The Tribe has
    purchased land that were once allotments and tried to build a
    land base.
        The need for additional land is still great. The modest
    amount of land the Tribe has acquired in trust has not met even
    our most modest needs. The fee to trust process has been
    completely frustrating for the Siletz Tribe and has taken years
    to acquire land in trust. And the Tribe has currently seven fee
    to trust requests that have been pending for several years.
        Because the Tribe's restored lands consists of 52 scattered
    parcels of trust land without an exterior reservation boundary,
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs reviews all of our trust
    applications under the more restrictive and difficult off-
    reservation criteria. The Tribe has to prove a higher
    justification for taking land into trust, and go through
    additional procedural hoops, even for land that is adjacent to
    our reservation.
        S. 908 will place the Tribe in the same position as other
    Tribes with regard to fee to trust requests as Tribes with
    existing reservations and exterior boundaries. It does not
    create a reservation. It does not establish Siletz Tribal
    jurisdiction over the area, and it does not affect the rights
    of any other Tribe.
        The first issue that we had discussed with this legislation
    many, many years ago was to be able to act like any other
    Tribe. Because we are a restored Tribe that wasn't possible.
    And with the taking of all of our land and trying to get it
    restored under a simple process, it is just not there. And we
    wanted also to respond to issues in our bill that the Bureau
    and other Tribes have taken issue to, which is the issue with
    the county provision. It was a provision that Lincoln County
    wanted to have in the bill. We suggested it would not likely
    pass, and actually, we would like to have that provision
    removed from the bill.
        We also wanted to briefly respond to statements that are on
    the record with regard to the Coos Tribe, Lower Umpqua and
    Siuslaw, to talk about the removal of those Tribes to the
    Siletz Reservation. We have many members on our reservation who
    are descendants of these three Tribes. The modern day Coos
    Tribe is comprised of off-reservation Coos, Lower Umpqua and
    Siuslaw Indians who either never moved to the Siletz
    Reservation or who individually left the Siletz Reservation.
    They renounced any connection to the reservation. Federal case
    law clearly rejects their claims to anything on the Siletz
    Reservation.
        Secondly, the Grand Ronde Tribe's claim to the Siletz
    coastward reservation were made and rejected in several court
    claims. They have no legal basis and are contrary to existing
    Federal law. The Grand Ronde Tribe is the Indian Tribe
    recognized by the Federal Government with authority over the
    Grand Ronde Reservation. They were never part of the Siletz
    Reservation.
        The Grand Ronde Tribe Restoration Act says specifically
    that their Tribe is comprised of Indians from the Willamette
    Valley who were settled on the Grand Ronde Reservation. There
    is no mention of the Siletz Coast Reservation or any claim of
    the Grand Ronde Tribe to the Siletz Coast Reservation and it
    doesn't appear anywhere in history.
        We support, very much support a Carcieri fix. I know that
    has been discussed by many Tribes across the Nation, a fix to
    legislation that settles who is an Indian Tribe and what Tribe
    has a right to take land into trust. And how that gets fixed we
    don't know. But we know, Senator Akaka, that you have worked
    toward a fix, and we truly support your efforts. We have sent
    letters in support of your efforts.
        That concludes my testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pigsley follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Delores Pigsley, Chairman, Confederated
                        Tribes of Siletz Indians, Oregon

            *Attachments retained in Committee files*

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Pigsley.
        Chairman Garcia, please proceed with your testimony.

              STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT GARCIA, CHAIRMAN,
     CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW INDIANS

        Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, members of
    the Committee. My name is Robert Garcia. I am an enrolled
    member and Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower
    Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here. We support helping
    Tribes getting land into trust for a variety of purposes. It is
    a goal we share. Unfortunately, we cannot support Senate Bill
    908 as introduced. This bill gives unfair advantage to one
    Tribe over others with similar claims to the land.
        But before turning to our specific concerns, I want to
    provide the Committee with some relevant history. The Coos,
    Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw live on approximately 1.6 million
    acres of our ancestral lands outlined by the blue boundary on
    our maps with our written testimony. Members of the Coos and
    Lower Umpqua Tribes were forcibly removed in 1860 from our
    ancestral lands, moved north to the reservation established by
    executive order by President Pierced in the fall of 1855. The
    boundaries of that reservation are outlined in red on the
    submitted map.
        The solid yellow region on the map is the area of overlap
    between the reservation established by President Pierce and our
    ancestral lands. While the Coos and Lower Umpqua were forcibly
    removed to the reservation, the Siuslaw Indians remained in
    their homeland. Indeed, we believe the 1855 Coast Reservation
    referred to in S. 908 might as accurately be called the Siuslaw
    Coast Reservation as it can be called the Siletz Coast
    Reservation.
        Our existence has been acknowledged by the Federal
    Government at least since the summer of 1855, when Joel Palmer
    negotiated on behalf of the United States the Empire Treaty
    with our Tribes and others. Neither the reservation referred to
    in the Empire Treaty nor the reservation referred to in Senate
    Bill 908 were established by ratified treaty. The Coast
    Reservation is shared by many Tribes, including ourselves and
    the Siletz.
        The United States terminated our Tribe in 1954, and we were
    restored in 1984 by the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw
    Restoration Act. We have since established a casino, Three
    Rivers Casino, and built Tribal housing near Florence near the
    heart of our Siuslaw lands, while our Tribal headquarters is
    based in Coos Bay, situated in our Coos territories. Today we
    provide approximately 600 jobs for Indians and non-Indians
    alike.
        We support Senators Wyden and Merkley for introducing S.
    356 and S. 908. They understand the emotive and tangible
    connection between Native peoples and our aboriginal lands.
    Indeed, we have our own aspirations for acquiring more
    homelands. While we have no concerns about S. 356, we support
    it and applaud the delegation for helping the Tribe secure its
    land aspiration in a targeted way that avoids impinging on the
    interests of other Tribes.
        We object to Senate Bill 908. We do not agree that the
    Siletz Tribe is the successor Tribe to the Oregon Coast
    Reservation. And we believe that S. 908 has fairness and equity
    problems. We are going to leave the county government issue to
    others and move on. But under S. 908, the Siletz, and only the
    Siletz, are entitled to have treated as an on-reservation
    acquisition all property they propose for trust within the
    800,000 Coast reservation. To give the Siletz favorable
    treatment with respect to all of this land is unsupported by
    law, is historically inaccurate and is just plain unfair to my
    people.
        Siletz currently have on-reservation status for lands
    within the reservation established as a result of the
    restoration in Lincoln County. S. 908 expands that reservation
    status to 800,000 acres of the Coast Reservation, a reservation
    we feel is shared by many Tribes. But only gives reservation
    status on those lands for the Siletz. Our Tribe has a casino,
    Three Rivers Casino, as previously mentioned, in Florence,
    Oregon, centered in our Siuslaw lands. Under S. 908, our casino
    would be in the midst of their reservation. If we buy land for
    housing Tribal members in our Siuslaw lands, it would be
    considered on the Siletz reservation.
        The Siletz and we have both intended to purchase property
    for timber. Suppose both Tribes of the adjacent lands wish to
    place them in trust. If S. 908 becomes law, the Siletz would be
    free of the obligation to satisfy the Secretary's escalated
    scrutiny for acquisition far distant from the Tribe's
    headquarters. If the acquisition were proposed for business
    purposes, the Siletz would not be required to provide the
    Secretary with a business plan to show the anticipated economic
    benefits of the proposed use. Finally, the Siletz acquisition
    would be processed within 30 days and without notice to the
    State and local government.
        In contrast, our application for adjacent parcels would be
    subject to exacting scrutiny by the Secretary. We would be
    required to write a business plan and we would then be required
    to give notice and allow for comment by State and local
    governments. This distinction is not justified by history or by
    law. It is inherently unfair.
        The complex history of Tribes on the Oregon Coast
    demonstrates that it would be an error to jump to the
    conclusion that the reservation created by President Pierce
    conveyed special status to the Siletz then, or supports today
    Congress extending such unfair advantage.
        In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase George Orwell in
    1984: S. 908 makes some Tribes more equal to others. And we do
    not believe that is fair or right.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Garcia, Chairman, Confederated Tribes
                   of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Garcia, for
    your testimony.
        I would like to call on our Vice Chairman for any remarks
    that he may have. Senator Barrasso?

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First
    of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for your patience
    in waiting for us to finish with the votes. I know you here
    today are here because you have a lot at stake. The bills
    involve issues of critical importance to the Tribes and they
    are issues that we need to look at very carefully. So I
    appreciate your patience, I also want to thank the staff.
        Since we do things, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan way, you
    know that the staffs are here late at night, both sides of the
    aisle, because of their commitment. I also want to thank
    Senator Franken for being here, and specifically you, Mr.
    Chairman, for your gracious leadership. It would have been very
    easy to have canceled this hearing.
        But you know how important these issues are and how far
    these people have traveled. But this has been the hallmark of
    your entire career in the Senate, gracious leadership, a
    wonderful gentleman. I just want to thank you for making sure
    that these people were heard and this hearing was held. So
    thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing else to add.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso, for
    your remarks. I really appreciate that.
        I would like to hold my question, and I am going to ask
    Senator Franken to proceed with his questions of the Minnesota
    Tribes. Senator Franken?
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This isn't an easy hearing for me. This has been a dispute
    a long time with the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. And earlier
    today we took a picture. We have all the chairmen and
    chairwomen of all the bands here, Chairman Deschampe from Grand
    Portage, who is also the president of the MCT, and we have
    Kevin Leecy, who is here from Bois Forte, Marge Anderson from
    Mille Lacs, Karen Diver from Fond du Lac, who had to leave,
    Chairman Visinor, Erma Visinor from White Earth, and Chairman
    LaRose. And it was nice to have the picture, it really was.
    This has been a long-time dispute. And boy, I wish this had
    been unanimous. It would have made it a lot easier.
        Chairman LaRose and I met today, in the morning. And we
    talked about other conversations we have had about speaking
    from the heart. So I am speaking from the heart now, where this
    is not easy for me. Because of the lateness, Michael Black, the
    Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was going to testify
    about this. But I can read from his written testimony. And I
    think he framed this pretty much exactly as I see it. He said,
    ``The Department appreciates the concern of Leech Lake, with
    whom it has a government to Government relationship, and would
    prefer a unanimous agreement among the six bands of the
    Minesota Chippewa Tribe regarding the best method to distribute
    the settlement funds. Nevertheless, the recognized governing
    body of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has voted ten to two in
    favor of the distribution formula set forth in S. 1739. Out of
    respect for the decision of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and
    in light of the need to distribute the settlement funds in an
    equitable and expeditious manner, the Department supports S.
    1739.''
        There are little excerpts of this I can read, all six bands
    equally shared the expenses and risk of prosecuting the cases
    and dockets, numbers 19 and 188. The TEC's 1998 vote to settle
    the cases for $20 million was not unanimous, as three members
    voted against the proposed settlement. The TEC's settlement
    vote, however, was respected by all the bands and the Federal
    court, which stated: ``The Tribal Executive Committee has the
    constitutional authority to enter into the proposed settlement
    on behalf of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.'' It says, once
    again, the Department would prefer that any distribution plan
    have the unanimous support of all the Minnesota Chippewa
    Tribes' constituent bands, and so do I.
        Nevertheless, the 1999 settlement itself was not reached
    with the unanimous consent of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes'
    constituent bands, and the Department views S. 1739 as the most
    equitable and expeditious means to distribute the funds agreed
    upon in that settlement and to provide a small measure of
    justice to the citizens of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. And
    perhaps that is why this is so difficult, Mr. Chairman, because
    of those words, small measure of justice.
        The source of all this is, in my mind, the historic
    mistreatment of Indian Tribes by the Federal Government. Would
    you agree with that, Chairman LaRose?
        Mr. LaRose. I would agree that we are the biggest victims
    of this case. We suffered the majority of the damages.
        Mr. Franken. I understand. Chairman Deschampe, if Congress
    enacts the bill, S. 1739, and may I ask for a little extra
    time, Mr. Chairman? We have waited several hours for this, and
    this is of tremendous importance.
        Mr. Chairman, if Congress enacts this bill, each Tribal
    member will receive $300. Can you describe the economic
    condition of most of these recipients? Will that amount of
    money make a difference in their lives?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes, Senator, I think it will make a huge
    difference, especially now. I don't know how long it would take
    to get the money here. But the reservations all have high
    unemployment rates. This money would go to help families pay
    heating bills, buy groceries. It is not a lot of money in most
    people's mind. But it is something. And it would go a long way
    towards helping make, for a little bit, make life better for
    some of these people.
        Senator Franken. The bill would also distribute
    approximately $2.5 million to each of the six bands. What would
    the bands be able to accomplish with these funds?
        Mr. Deschampe. I don't know. That is up to each individual
    band to make that decision. But I think we were talking
    earlier, we have been through seven elections since this was
    approved. So it would be really hard to make any kind of plans,
    when nobody really has, through the process, had any faith that
    the money was even going to be there. So that makes it real
    difficult to plan.
        But I do know the White Earth's plan was to work on three
    community centers. And that didn't happen. I don't think that
    plan is still on the books. But everybody has needs.
        Senator Franken. And let me ask you one last question.
    Chairman Deschampe, under the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
    constitution, the Tribal Executive Committee makes decisions
    for the Tribe by majority vote, is that right?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes, it is.
        Senator Franken. And does this way of resolving differences
    work well for the Tribe? Has it?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes, it does. Sometimes we don't get what we
    want, every, each individual band. But our constitution
    requires us to settle issues based on a majority vote. My
    reservation is a good example of this. We voted against the
    settlement originally. But we went on to say, okay, the
    majority vote wanted to settle this case, so that is the way it
    is.
        Senator Franken. The original in 1998?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes.
        Senator Franken. It was three against, and my understanding
    was that White Earth and Grand Portage voted to comprise those
    three, is that correct?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes. I was chairing the meeting, so our
    other rep was the one vote that made the odd vote. And yes, we
    voted against the settlement. But majority rules.
        Senator Franken. And the majority was respected?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes, we respected the majority's rule.
        Senator Franken. And Leech Lake voted in favor?
        Mr. Deschampe. Yes.
        Senator Franken. Okay.
        Chairman LaRose, we have discussed this today and we have
    discussed this before, and this is a complex issue. You know
    that we have looked at, through the legal documents and that my
    staff and I have come to the same conclusion as the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. Nevertheless, I just want to tell you that I
    totally respect your point of view and that again, this is not
    an easy hearing for me. I just feel the best thing right now is
    for members living now to get them the funds. I just want to
    throw it to you to ask you to say whatever you want to say.
        Mr. LaRose. I want to thank you for that, Senator Franken.
    Our people have been waiting at least a century for our land
    back. We lost the majority of our land in this Nelson Act, 68.9
    percent of the damages happened and occurred on Leech Lake. We
    are the biggest victims and we have to live with the damages.
    That is what this hearing should be all about, is the damages
    in itself.
        And I am going to speak from the heart, how I was taught.
    Our ancestors taught us some wonderful values in life and they
    passed the values down to our Anishinabe Indian people. And
    those values are for us to be there for one another, for us to
    share and care for one another.
        And I am going to give you one example here, of Leech Lake
    Reservation and the Grand Portage Reservation. Grand Portage
    had .9 percent damage. Grand Portage has 1,400 band members
    enrolled. Grand Portage owns, or has 98 percent of their land
    in trust. And now I am going to give you Leech Lake's side:
    68.9 percent of the damage happened and occurred on Leech Lake
    reservation. We have 9,500 band members and we only own 4
    percent of our land. We are in dire need of our land, and that
    is where we are hurting.
        So I just wanted to bring that across to everyone in here,
    that we are the real victims in this whole settlement case. We
    always felt we should be fully compensated for the damages that
    occurred from this Nelson Act. Thank you.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank all the Chairs of all the bands for being
    here today. I do want to get the settlement to the members of
    the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, to the Ojibwe. And again, I thank
    you, Chairman LaRose, I thank you, Chairman Deschampe.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Franken.
        Let me just ask one question of Chairwoman Kennedy,
    Chairwoman Pigsley, and Chairman Garcia. The Department
    testified of the need for a Carcieri fix to alleviate backlogs
    of land into trust applications at the Department of Interior.
    My question to you is, do you support a Carcieri fix?
    Chairwoman Kennedy?
        Ms. Kennedy. I believe that the issues do need to be
    resolved. I do support that Tribes have been waiting for years,
    many for years. We have also pending applications that have not
    been resolved yet, and I do believe that yes, we need to have
    an answer.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Pigsley?
        Ms. Pigsley. Yes, we support a Carcieri fix. We have sent
    supporting resolutions when a fix was, it looked like a fix
    might happen, and a fix be added to another bill. We supported
    that. And we truly support it and we believe it needs to
    happen.
        The Chairman. Chairman Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Chairman Akaka, we support a Carcieri fix. We
    believe that all Tribes are Carcieri-afflicted, if not
    directly, indirectly by means of the additional uncertainty in
    financial transactions. We believe it has an adverse economic
    effect on all Tribes. So I believe that the Carcieri issue is
    much broader than it may be, that more Tribes are affected by
    it than many may think.
        The Chairman. I want to thank you very much. I am going to
    submit my other questions for the record, and I know it is
    getting late. So I want to express my warm mahalo, thank you,
    to all our witnesses at today's hearing. I truly appreciate how
    important these bills are to you and look forward to continuing
    to work with you as we move these bills through the Committee.
        Because of the delay in starting the hearing, as I said, I
    won't be asking any further questions. I will submit them for
    the record, and to you for your writing on it. Are there any
    further comments?
        Senator Franken. Again, I would like to thank everybody for
    coming.
        The Chairman. Again, I thank you all so much, but I wanted
    to finish this hearing, especially to take on your testimonies,
    so that as we consider these bills, we know we have heard from
    you and know what positions you have. I can see there are some
    difficulties. And yet, we use the democratic process, and we
    call the votes as they come. So that will happen through the
    Committee, too, but at least we will have your thinking on
    these questions.
        So with that, Senator Franken and our witnesses, this
    hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 6:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

        Prepared Statement of Mike S. Black, Director, Bureau of Indian
                    Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

                                     S. 356

        Chairman Akaka, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the
    Committee, my name is Mike Black, and I am the Director of the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Administration's views on S. 356, to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation
    Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes. The
    Department of the Interior (Department) supports S. 356.
        Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions that
    the Department undertakes on behalf of Indian tribes. Homelands are
    essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the tribal governments.
    Thus, the Department has made the restoration of tribal homelands a
    priority.
        S. 356 amends an Act to establish a reservation for the
    Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Pub. L. No.
    100-425 (Sept. 9, 1988), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    place in trust approximately 288 acres of real property located within
    the boundaries of the original 1857 reservation of the Confederated
    Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon if the real property is
    conveyed or otherwise transferred to the United States by or on behalf
    of the Tribe. Furthermore, the bill provides that the Secretary is to
    treat all applications to take land into trust within the boundaries of
    the original 1857 reservation as an on-reservation trust acquisition,
    and that all real property taken into trust within those boundaries
    after September 9, 1988, are to be considered part of the Tribe's
    reservation.
        Again, the Department supports S. 356. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present testimony on S. 356. I will be happy to answer
    any questions you may have.

                                     S. 908

        Chairman Akaka, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the
    Committee, my name is Mike Black, and I am the Director of the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's (Department) views on S. 908, a bill to
    provide for the addition of certain real property to the reservation of
    the Siletz Tribe.
        Taking land into trust is one of the most important functions that
    the Department undertakes on behalf of Indian tribes. Homelands are
    essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the tribal governments.
    Thus, this Administration has made the restoration of tribal homelands
    a priority. This Administration is committed to the restoration of
    tribal homelands, through the Department's acquisition of lands in
    trust for tribes, where appropriate. While the Department is working
    hard to live up to this commitment, we cannot support S. 908 as
    currently drafted.
        S. 908 would amend the Siletz Tribe Indian Restoration Act, 25
    U.S.C.  711e, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land
    into trust for the Siletz Tribe. The lands lie within the original 1855
    Siletz Coast Reservation and are located in the counties of Benton,
    Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook, and Yamhill, which are all located
    within the State of Oregon. S. 908 would require that such land would
    be considered and evaluated as an on-reservation acquisition under 25
    C.F.R.  151.10 and become part of the Tribe's reservation if the
    county in which the land is located submits a written approval to the
    Secretary of the Interior. If a county does not approve of land being
    considered an on-reservation acquisition under 25 C.F.R.  151.10, the
    bill provides that any real property taken into trust ``shall be
    considered and evaluated under the appropriate provisions of part 151
    of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), as
    determined by the Secretary.''
        The Department believes its regulations, at 25 C.F.R.   151.10
    and 151.11, already provide sufficient opportunities for state and
    local units of government to provide views on applications for land to
    be acquired in trust.
        Under those regulations, State and local governments are given a 30
    day period to submit written comments concerning jurisdictional
    problems and potential regulatory conflicts as well as tax impacts that
    may result from the land acquisition. In addition, state and local
    governments, as well as the general public, may submit comments related
    to environmental impacts in the review process under the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These comments may encompass a variety
    of issues such as social and economic impacts, law enforcement
    concerns, social services, and environmental concerns. Under NEPA, many
    local governments serve as ``cooperating agencies,'' and thus
    participate very closely in the Department's NEPA review process.
        Finally, if the Department decides to acquire land in trust, it
    must publish at least 30-days notice of this decision pursuant to 25
    C.F.R.  151.12(b) prior to acquiring trust title to the land. The 30-
    day notice period provides an opportunity for interested parties,
    including state and local units of government, to initiate a legal
    challenge to the proposed trust acquisition.
        The Department does not believe it is necessary to legislatively
    insert county approval of a particular tribe's fee-to-trust
    applications into our regulations governing this process. While the
    Department gives serious consideration to the views of local units of
    government in processing applications for the acquisition of land into
    trust, we must also be mindful of the unique and important role the
    Department plays in managing the relationship between the United States
    and tribal nations. The decision to acquire land in trust for a tribal
    nation must ultimately rest with the Secretary in managing that
    relationship.
        In April of this year, the United States Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) stated that the uncertainty in acquiring land in trust for
    tribes, as a result of the Carcieri decision, is a barrier to economic
    development in Indian Country. The GAO predicted that, until the
    uncertainty created by the Carcieri decision is resolved, Indian tribes
    would be asking Congress for tribe-specific legislation to take land in
    trust, rather than submitting fee-to-trust applications to the
    Department.
        As evidenced by S. 908, this prediction is coming to fruition, and
    Indian tribes are asking their Members of Congress for tribe-specific
    legislation to take land in trust. This will lead to a patchwork of
    laws governing the land into trust process, rather than the uniform
    process that Congress envisioned in enacting the Indian Reorganization
    Act in 1934. Such a patchwork would be difficult for the Department to
    administer.
        The Department opposes S. 908 as introduced, but could support the
    bill if the provisions regarding county approval are removed from the
    bill. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views
    on this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.

                                    S. 1739

        Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members
    of the Committee. I am pleased to be here today to testify on S. 1739,
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act. The bill is
    intended to provide for the distribution of funds owed to the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe by order of the United States Court of Federal Claims in
    Docket Nos. 19 and 188. The Department appreciates the effort by the
    Tribal Executive Committee of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe to resolve
    their differences through negotiation and to reach agreement on a
    distribution plan. However, the Department acknowledges that the
    distribution formula set forth in S. 1739 does not have the unanimous
    support of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe six member bands as the Leech
    Lake Band of Ojibwe (Leech Lake) has expressed its opposition to the
    distribution plan. The Department supports S. 1739 because it respects
    the decisions of the governing body of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.
    Background
        Congress enacted the Nelson Act, dated January 14, 1889, 25 Stat.
    642, (Nelson Act) to establish a process ``for the complete cession and
    relinquishment in writing of all of [the Chippewa Indians in the State
    of Minnesota's] title and interest in and to all the reservations of
    said Indians in the State of Minnesota, except the White Earth and Red
    Lake Reservations. The Nelson Act provided that proceeds from the sale
    of lands of the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota were to be placed into a
    fund within the Treasury for a period of 50 years, with annual payments
    of interest made to individual Chippewa Indians. Section 7 of the
    Nelson Act provided that, after the expiration of 50 years, ``the said
    permanent fund shall be divided and paid to all of the said Chippewa
    Indians and their issue then living, in cash, in equal shares[.]''
    Those funds were to be distributed in equal shares, without regard to
    which reservation lands they were tied.
        Following the 50-year period contemplated by the Nelson Act, there
    were no remaining funds to distribute in equal shares to the individual
    Chippewa Indians in Minnesota.
        The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe was established in 1934, pursuant to
    the Indian Reorganization Act. The Secretary approved the Tribe's
    constitution in 1936. Under that Constitution, the Minnesota Chippewa
    Tribe consists of six member bands, on six different reservations: Bois
    Fort, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, Leech Lake, Mille Lacs and White
    Earth. Each Band has two representatives on the Tribal Executive
    Committee (TEC), which is the governing body for the entire Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe.
        On January 22, 1948, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, representing all
    Chippewa bands in Minnesota except the Red Lake Band, filed a claim
    before the Indian Claims Commission in Docket No. 19 for an accounting
    of all funds received and expended pursuant to the Nelson Act, On
    August 2, 1951, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, representing all Chippewa
    Bands in Minnesota except the Red Lake Band, filed a number of claims
    before the Indian Claims Commission in Docket No. 188 for an accounting
    of the Government's obligations to each of the member bands of the
    Tribe under various statutes and treaties that are not covered by the
    Nelson Act. The Department understands that the expenses for
    prosecuting the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe's claims in Docket Nos. 19 and
    188 were shared equally by the six Bands.
        The primary claims asserted by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in
    Docket Nos. 19 and 188 were that the proceeds from the sale of land and
    timber on the six reservations pursuant under the Nelson Act were
    misspent, and that the Tribe's land and timber were sold at less than
    full-value.
        On July 1, 1998, the TEC enacted Resolution 01-99, which approved
    the settlement of the claims for a sum of $20 million. The vote was 6
    in favor of adopting Resolution 01-99 and 3 against. The United States
    Court of Federal Claims accepted the TEC's decision, and awarded $20
    million to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in May 1999, in Docket Nos. 19
    and 188. The court specifically stated ``[t]he Tribal Executive
    Committee has the constitutional authority to enter into the proposed
    settlement on behalf of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.'' The funds were
    transferred to the Department on June 22, 1999 and have been held in
    trust since.
        The Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Act (Act) of October 19, 1973, 87
    Stat. 466, 25 U.S.C.  1401 et seq., as amended, requires the Secretary
    of the Interior to submit to the Congress a plan for the use or
    distribution of funds to an Indian tribe. Under subsections 2(c) and
    (d) of the Act, should the Secretary determine that circumstances do
    not permit for the preparation and submission of a plan as provided
    under the Act and the Secretary cannot obtain the consent from the
    tribal governing body concerning the division of the judgment funds
    within 180 days after the appropriation of the funds for the award, the
    Secretary is required to submit to the Congress proposed legislation to
    authorize use or distribution of such funds.
        Pursuant to the Act, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Indian
    Affairs issued a Results of Research Report on the Judgment in Favor of
    the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, et al., v. United States, Dockets 19 and
    188 (Report) on June 6, 2001. The Report recommended that 35 percent of
    the funds should be distributed to each of the six Minnesota Chippewa
    Bands (Bands) in proportion to their losses and 65 percent should be
    distributed to each of the Bands in proportion to their current tribal
    enrollment.
        Also pursuant to the Act, in April of 2007, the Department
    submitted a legislative proposal to the Speaker of the House of
    Representatives and to the President of the Senate. The Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe expressed opposition to both the 2001 and the 2007
    distribution plans, for varying reasons.
        The Department's 2007 proposal was introduced in the 110th Congress
    by Congressman Collin Peterson on May 14, 2007 as H.R. 2306. H.R. 2306
    provided that the fund should be allocated pro rata between the six
    Minnesota Chippewa Bands (Bands) based upon the number of tribal
    members currently enrolled within each of the Bands. \1\ The House
    Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the bill, but no further
    action was taken on H.R. 2306. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ By letter dated May 22, 2008, then-Assistant Secretary of
    Indian Affairs, Carl Artman, rescinded the June 6, 2001 Results of
    Research Report which forms the basis for H.R. 2306. By letter dated
    May 30, 2008, Legislative Counsel for the Department clarified that Mr.
    Artman's letter ``does not reflect the views of the Department of the
    Interior or the Administration on this issue.''
        \2\ U.S.C.  1405 states ``[t]he plan prepared by the Secretary
    shall become effective, and he shall take immediate action to implement
    the plan for the use or distribution of such judgment funds, at the end
    of the sixty-day period (excluding days on which either the House of
    Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an
    adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day certain)
    beginning on the day such plan is submitted to the Congress, unless
    during such sixty-day period a joint resolution is enacted disapproving
    such plans.'' The Department could not find a joint resolution from
    Congress disapproving the plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On October 1, 2009, the TEC passed Resolution 146-09, by a vote of
    10 in favor and 2 against, to distribute the judgment funds. S. 1739
    incorporates many of the provisions in the Tribal Resolution 146-09.
    S. 1739
        Section 4 of S. 1739 provides that the Secretary is to reimburse
    the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe for attorneys' fees, and litigation
    expenses.
        Section 5 of the bill provides the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe with 90
    days to submit an updated membership roll for each Band of the Tribe to
    include the names of all enrolled members of that Band living on the
    date of enactment of the Act.
        After the attorneys' fees and litigation expenses have been
    disbursed and the Secretary has received the updated membership rolls,
    Section 5 directs the Secretary to deposit a ``per capita account'' of
    $300 for each member enrolled within each Band. Any remaining funds are
    to be deposited in a separate account and divided equally among the
    Bands. After the Secretary deposits the available funds into the ``per
    capita account,'' a Band may withdraw all or part of the monies in its
    account. All funds in that account shall be used for the purposes of
    distributing one $300 payment to each enrolled member of the Band.
        Each Band may distribute an additional $300 to the parents or legal
    guardians for each dependent Band member instead of distributing $300
    payments to the Band members themselves, or deposit into a trust
    account the $300 payments of each dependent Band member for the benefit
    of such dependent Band members to be distributed under the terms of
    said trust.
        Section 5(d) addresses the distribution of unclaimed payments. This
    section provides that one year after the distribution all unclaimed
    payments for the Tribe to be returned to the Secretary who shall divide
    the funds equally among the Bands.
        Lastly, Section 5(e) provides that, the Secretary shall not retain
    liability for the expenditure or investment of the monies after they
    are withdrawn by the Bands.
    Department's position on S. 1739
        S. 1739 raises a unique and complex question involving the United
    States' respect for the sovereignty of tribal governments. The
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a sovereign government, formed in 1936
    under the Indian Reorganization Act, and the TEC is the governing body
    of the Tribe. The TEC is comprised of twelve members, two from each of
    the six constituent Bands. Each constituent Band, however, also
    functions as a distinct sovereign government.
        On October 1, 2009, the TEC passed Resolution 146-09, by a vote of
    10 in favor and 2 against, to distribute the judgment funds in
    accordance to the formula set forth in S. 1739. The Department
    understands that disagreements among the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe's
    constituent bands, and between the Department and the Tribe, have
    prevented the distribution of the settlement funds for a number of
    years. The Department also understands that the Leech Lake Band opposes
    the distribution formula set out in S. 1739. Leech Lake has
    consistently supported the view that the distribution should be based
    upon total damages suffered by each band. The Department appreciates
    the concerns of Leech Lake, with whom it has a government-to-government
    relationship, and would prefer a unanimous agreement among the six
    bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe regarding the best method to
    distribute the settlement funds.
        Nevertheless, the recognized governing body of the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe has voted 10-2 in favor of the distribution formula set
    forth in S.1739. Out of respect for the decision of the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe, and in light of the need to distribute the settlement
    funds in an equitable and expeditious manner, the Department supports
    S. 1739.
        The Nelson Act originally contemplated a common-fund for the
    benefit of individual Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, which would have
    been distributed to individuals on a per capita basis. S. 1739 differs
    from previous plans to distribute the settlement funds, and reflects
    the original intent of Congress to distribute the common proceeds to
    individuals on a per capita basis.
        The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe filed Docket Nos. 19 and 188 for the
    common benefit of all its constituent Bands and members. All six bands
    equally shared the expense and risk of prosecuting the cases. S. 1739
    also reflects the equal risk shared by the constituent bands when the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe initiated its claim more than 60 years ago.
        The TEC's 1998 vote to settle the cases for $20 million was not
    unanimous, as three members voted against the proposed settlement. But
    for the TEC's vote to settle the case, Dockets Nos. 19 and 188 could
    still be in litigation. The TEC's settlement vote, however, was
    respected by all Bands and the federal court, which stated ``[t]he
    Tribal Executive Committee has the constitutional authority to enter
    into the proposed settlement on behalf of the Minnesota Chippewa
    Tribe.''
        Once again, the Department would prefer that any distribution plan
    have the unanimous support of all of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe's
    constituent bands. Should the Committee, and the sponsors of S. 1739,
    wish to consider amendments to the bill in an effort to gain the
    unanimous support of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, the Department is
    willing to participate in that effort.
        Nevertheless, the 1999 settlement itself was not reached with the
    unanimous consent of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe's constituent bands,
    and the Department views S. 1739 as the most equitable and expeditious
    means to distribute the funds agreed upon in that settlement, and to
    provide a small measure of justice to the citizens of the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Marge Anderson, Chief Executive, Mille Lacs Band
                               of Ojibwe Indians

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Marge Anderson, Chief
    Executive of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, located in east
    central Minnesota. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to
    your Committee.
        I am here today on behalf of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
    regarding the distribution of a judgment awarded to the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe in Docket Nos. 19 and 188 in the United States Court of
    Federal Claims in 1999. After over twelve years, it is time these
    monies went to the people who were harmed. The Tribe has voted to
    distribute the judgment, and I support the Tribe's sovereign authority
    and property right to determine the distribution of the judgment
    awarded to the Tribe. The Tribe's determination is reflected in S.
    1739, a bill sponsored by our Senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar.
                      the mille lacs band supports s. 1739
    The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
        The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe is one of the six constituent bands
    which comprise the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Each of the constituent
    bands is, in its own right, a distinct sovereign government. This fact
    is reflected in the bands' Self-Governance Compacts with the United
    States Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and
    Human Services.
        However, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is, itself, also a sovereign
    entity. It was formed in 1936 under the Indian Reorganization Act, and
    its constitution was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Under
    the Tribe's revised constitution, approved by the Secretary in 1964,
    the governing body of the Tribe is the Tribal Executive Committee
    (TEC). Each constituent band has equal representation on the TEC, with
    two seats each. The constitution authorizes the TEC to act by majority
    vote.
    The Judgment Fund
        The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe was the only plaintiff in Docket Nos.
    19 and 188 before the Indian Claims Commission. After the Indian Claims
    Commission ceased to exist, the Tribe's claims in these dockets were
    transferred to the United States Court of Federal Claims, where the
    Tribe remained the only plaintiff in the case. The Tribe ultimately
    resolved its claims by entering into a settlement agreement with the
    United States. The Tribe and the United States were the only parties to
    the settlement agreement.
        It is important to note that the many decisions to undertake,
    finance and prosecute the litigation, and to negotiate, reach and
    approve the settlement agreement, were all made by the TEC on behalf of
    the Tribe. It is also important to note that the Court specifically
    recognized and affirmed the TEC's constitutional authority to act on
    behalf of the Tribe before approving the settlement agreement.
        This is confirmed by the key steps leading to entry of the final
    judgment in the case. First, on July 1, 1998, the TEC enacted
    Resolution 01-99, which approved the negotiated settlement of the
    Tribe's claims. The vote was 6 to 3, with 10 members present.
        Second, on May 21, 1999, the Tribe and the United States filed a
    Joint Motion and Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment in the Court
    of Federal Claims. The stipulation called for the Court to enter
    judgment in the amount of $20,000,000 ``in favor of plaintiff Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe.'' The parties submitted the TEC resolution, which
    reflected the 6 to 3 vote, to the Court in support of their motion.
        Third, the Court found that ``[t]he Tribal Executive Committee has
    the constitutional authority to enter into the proposed settlement on
    behalf of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe,'' and that the TEC resolution
    approving the settlement (along with the signature of the Tribe's
    attorney on the stipulation) was ``appropriate and sufficient evidence
    of acceptance by the Tribe of the settlement.''
        Fourth, on May 26, 1999, the Court approved the settlement and
    directed the Clerk to enter judgment ``pursuant to the [parties']
    stipulation.'' Judgment was entered for ``plaintiff,'' the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe.
        Finally, in accordance with the Court's judgment, $20,000,000 was
    deposited into a trust fund account, creating the judgment fund. Under
    federal law, the sole beneficiary of the judgment fund is the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe.
    The Tribe's Decision
        Under the Tribe's constitution, the TEC is authorized to make
    decisions to administer, expend and apportion funds within the control
    of the Tribe. The members of the TEC--that is, the leaders of the six
    sovereign tribes that comprise the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe--have
    devoted thousands of hours and countless tribal resources to come up
    with a plan for the distribution of the Tribe's judgment fund. We know
    the facts, the history, the legal theories and the injustices and the
    harms done to our people that are the basis of our claims. We lived
    through the litigation, undertook the negotiations, and finally
    embraced a settlement. We are, like you, elected by our people. And
    daily we are asked to make decisions, face very real, and sometimes
    life or death, problems and needs that stagger human imagination and
    certainly tribal resources. This is not a decision we took lightly or
    made in haste.
        On October 1, 2009, the TEC enacted Resolution No. 146-09, which
    approved a plan to distribute the Tribe's judgment funds and requested
    Congress to authorize the distribution in the manner described. The
    resolution was approved by five of the six bands, and reflects the
    carefully considered and legally binding decision of the Tribe. S. 1739
    would authorize the distribution of the Tribe's judgment fund in
    accordance with the Tribe's decision.
    Need for Legislation
        The Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 1973 requires the Secretary
    of the Interior to submit a proposed judgment distribution plan to
    Congress no later than one year after the date that funds are
    appropriated to satisfy an Indian Claims Commission judgment. The
    Secretary may obtain an automatic six-month extension to this deadline.
    If a proposed distribution plan is not submitted within the deadline,
    the funds may only be distributed through the enactment of legislation.
        The Secretary did not submit a proposed judgment distribution plan
    to Congress by the statutory deadline. Because the Secretary failed to
    do so, Congress must now enact a statute providing for the distribution
    of the judgment fund.
    Reasons for Supporting S. 1739
        We have three principal reasons for supporting S. 1739:

            1.  Sovereignty and Property Rights. Senator Franken's bill
            respects the sovereignty and property rights of the Minnesota
            Chippewa Tribe.

               In 1998, when the Tribe was considering whether to approve
            the settlement, some bands voted against it. However, under the
            constitution of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, the Tribal
            Executive Committee acts by majority vote and the settlement
            was approved by majority vote of the TEC. Appropriately, the
            vote was then accepted by the Department of Justice, the
            Department of the Interior and the Court of Federal Claims.
            Congress should give the same respect to the Tribe's decision
            regarding the distribution of the judgment as the Government
            gave to the Tribe's decision to settle the case.
               If the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is truly a government, and
            it is, its votes cannot be overruled on matters under its
            jurisdiction, including the distribution of a fund awarded to
            the Tribe. The defendant in a lawsuit cannot agree to settle a
            case by paying a sum of money to the plaintiff and then, when
            the plaintiff determines how the money is to be distributed,
            disregard that decision and pay the money to someone else. This
            would be a taking. Further, it would seemingly void the
            settlement and open the government to further, compounded
            litigation.
               In short, the Mille Lacs Band is simply requesting that the
            Federal Government respect the decision of the Minnesota
            Chippewa Tribe regarding the distribution of a judgment awarded
            to the Tribe. If the government does not recognize the
            sovereign authority and property rights here, it is a problem
            not just for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and its six
            constituent bands, but for all tribes across this country.

            2.  History. In the early 1980s, my predecessor, the Chief
            Executive of the Mille Lacs Band, Arthur Gahbow, testified in
            front of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on
            the distribution of another judgment obtained by the Minnesota
            Chippewa Tribe in another Indian Claims Commission case. He was
            told by the late Congressman Bruce Vento that he needed to go
            back to Minnesota, and that the decision was up to the
            Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, not the Mille Lacs Band.

               There are matters we undertake as a Band, such as the Mille
            Lacs Band Self-Governance Compact with the Department of the
            Interior, and there are matters we undertake as a Tribe, such
            as the litigation at issue here. The claims were brought by the
            Tribe, prosecuted by the Tribe and settled by the Tribe, and
            the judgment was awarded to the Tribe. As Congressman Vento
            said in the 1980s, the distribution of the award is up to the
            Tribe.
               This august Committee and its leaders have traditionally
            respected the sovereignty of Indian nations. In fact, it has
            often single-handedly spoken truth to power in this city on the
            issue of tribal sovereignty. Often this Committee has had to
            explain tribal sovereignty, help employ it, and sometimes
            celebrate it. We ask you to do so again, here, now.

            3.  Resolution. This is a moment in history when we can resolve
            a longstanding conflict. If we do not do this today, this
            decision will linger for a generation, or even longer. That
            would not be responsible governance. We have spent countless
            hours and diverted precious resources to finalizing a strong
            distribution plan, embraced by five of the six bands and
            supported by a huge majority of members. We have the common
            goal of wanting to do good things on our reservations, and this
            money from past harms can help. Today, we can and should move
            forward.

    Conclusion
        The bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe work together on
    virtually all issues--law enforcement, child welfare, economic
    development, and more. We have a long, distinguished and unified
    history together. Ours is a story of survival. It is also a story of
    occasional differences. Here we resolved our differences with close to
    unanimity. We debated and discussed this matter at length. We discussed
    proposal after proposal. Ultimately, we voted. Five of six bands are in
    agreement. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has spoken as a sovereign,
    self-governing tribal nation.
        Our Tribe's funds, our peoples' funds, are languishing in a trust
    account in the Department of the Interior--the very agency responsible
    for the mismanagement that gave rise to our claims in the first place--
    and we now need the assent of the Congress to access and use our own
    funds. It is an irony and little legacy of paternalism that should give
    way to sovereignty, self governance, self determination and respect.
        This august body has come to truly respect concepts like
    sovereignty, self determination and self governance; indeed, it has
    given them life and meaning in modern times. Now, here, after too much
    harm, too many tears, and too much time, wasted work and lost
    resources, please end this. After a century and half of losses, after
    six decades of litigation, and after a dozen years of our money in a
    dusty account at Interior, it is time. Now, here, accept the sovereign
    decision of our Tribe and give our people . . . our money.
        On behalf of the Mille Lacs Band, we thank our Senators and our two
    Congressmen for respecting tribal sovereignty. We thank this Committee
    and you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, for your long-standing
    respect for sovereignty. I respectfully request that the Committee do
    the right thing.
        The right thing to do is to respect the sovereignty of the Tribe
    and pass S. 1739.
        Mii gwetch.
                                     ______

    Joint Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin W. Leecy (Chairman) and David C.
        Morrison, Sr. (Secretary-Treasurer), Bois Forte Band of Chippewa
        Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee:

        We are, respectively, the Chairman and Secretary-Treasurer of the
    Bois Forte Band of Chippewa--one of the six constituent Bands of the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (MCT). Pursuant to the Revised Constitution
    and Bylaws of the MCT, we sit on the Tribal Executive Committee (TEC).
    In addition, Mr. Morrison is the Treasurer of the MCT and has served in
    that position since 1992.
        On behalf of the Bois Forte Band, we submit this statement in
    support of S. 1739. Our support is based on the fact that the
    distribution of the Nelson Act proceeds reflected in S. 1739 is
    consistent with the law of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and we have
    both taken an oath to uphold that law.
        For us, the distribution of the funds awarded to the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe must be guided by the Constitution of the Tribe. The
    claims that led to the award were first brought in the name of the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe under the Constitution approved by the
    Secretary of the Interior on July 24, 1936. From the time of filing
    until the claims were settled in 1999, decisions about the filing and
    prosecution of the claims and, ultimately, settlement of the claims,
    were decisions made by the TEC.
        Each of the Bands has two representatives on the Tribal Executive
    Committee and under our Constitution, it is that body which has the
    power ``to apportion all funds within its control.'' Although each Band
    has the power to deal with funds over which it has exclusive ownership
    or control, there is no doubt that the Tribal Executive Committee has
    the sole power to make decisions about funds owned by the Tribe as a
    whole. The funds at issue here are just that: owned by the Tribe as a
    whole.
        Throughout the Tribe's history the Tribal Executive Committee has
    made decisions about how to apportion funds belonging to the Tribe as a
    whole. Following the Nelson Act land sales, in the late 1930's vacant
    and unsold lands on the six Reservations were restored to the ownership
    of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Proceeds from those lands (primarily
    lease revenues and timber stumpage) on all of the Reservations were
    treated as Tribal funds and the Tribal Executive Committee used them to
    fund Tribal programs. In about 1980, the Tribal Executive Committee
    decided--by a majority vote--to allow the Reservations to retain the
    proceeds from leasing Tribal lands on their Reservation. Because of
    that vote by the Tribal Executive Committee, Leech Lake has been the
    beneficiary of more that $1 million annually for the last 30 years.
    Until 1995, the Tribe continued to use timber stumpage from its lands
    on all Reservations (primarily at Bois Forte) to fund its
    administrative programs. In 1995, the Tribal Executive Committee--again
    by majority vote--decided to apportion timber stumpage proceeds to the
    Reservation on which the timber was located. The point is: the Tribal
    Executive Committee decided how to allocate Tribal funds.
        When the Department of Justice was engaged in settlement
    discussions with the Tribe's attorneys in 1998, it wanted to be sure
    that a settlement with the Tribal Executive Committee would be
    constitutionally sufficient to bind the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and
    its constituent Bands. There was never any doubt on the tribal side,
    but apparently the Department of Justice wanted reassurance and so it
    asked the Department of the Interior to address the issue. On January
    7, 1999, the Department's Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs
    responded and concluded that ``the TEC has the constitutional authority
    to make a settlement agreement with the United States and to approve
    the settlement of these claims which relate to the disposition of
    tribal lands, interests in land or other tribal assets.'' If a decision
    of the TEC was sufficient to settle the claim, its decision on
    apportionment should also be binding. Under our Constitution, decisions
    made by a majority vote are the law. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is
    governed by the rule of law and that is why I support this legislation
    (S. 1739) that gives effect to the Tribe's law.
        As Treasurer of the MCT, Mr. Morrison has seen the financial
    problems that face the Tribe today as a result of its inability to
    access the funds awarded in 1999. The MCT now has an operating deficit
    that requires it to access a line of credit, but that would not be
    necessary if the Tribe is able to be reimbursed its expenses from the
    claims award. S. 1739 would allow the Tribe to return to financial
    stability.
        Bois Forte is aware of the fact that the Leech Lake Band opposes
    the distribution formula embodied in S. 1739 and persist in its
    position that because (as they assert) Leech Lake has incurred the most
    damages and should receive a share commensurate with those damages.
    However, neither the actual damages suffered nor the amounts misspent
    were specified in the Nelson Act settlement. For example, Bois Forte
    and the other Bands located far from the Consolidated Chippewa Agency
    could argue that they received a pittance of Nelson Act proceeds while
    Leech Lake received the lion's share simply because of proximity to the
    Agency. We have not argued about disproportionate benefit because the
    hard evidence was never developed in the Court. Similarly, we cannot
    agree with Leech Lake's claim of disproportionate harm for the same
    reason--the facts were never decided by the Court.
        The Bois Forte Band supports S. 1739 and urges the Committee to
    adopt it.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Erma J. Vizenor, Chairwoman, White Earth
                                 Tribal Nation

        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of this important Committee. I
    am Erma Vizenor, the Chairwoman of the White Earth Tribal Nation. I
    submit this written testimony in strong support of S. 1739.
        We certainly appreciate your scheduling a hearing on this very
    important legislation for our people. In addition, I want to thank you
    and Members of the Committee for your efforts to support improvements
    to the life of all people in Indian Country. We appreciate your hard
    work and the improvements in many conditions we have seen due to your
    decisions. We saw firsthand the wide variety of efforts needed for this
    work when the Committee honored us by holding a Field Hearing at the
    White Earth Tribal Nation in the fall of 2010. We were very
    appreciative of being included in this important work.
        I want to take a moment now to thank the tireless efforts of
    Senator Al Franken and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota for moving
    this important legislation forward. In addition, I want to thank Cong.
    Collin Peterson and Cong. Chip Cravaack for sponsoring a companion bill
    in the U.S. House of Representatives. These four elected officials
    represent every Member of Congress and Senator who represent all six
    bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. I think this is very important
    to note since they have listened to all sides of this issue for many
    years, but decided it was important now to support the decision of the
    governing body of the MCT and sponsor the legislation that would
    reflect the majority vote for allocating these funds at this time.
        This is a critical piece of legislation to the people of the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. We believe it is the beginning of a chance to
    heal many wounds that have been present from the issue of timber sales
    made from Indian reservations throughout Minnesota, particularly at the
    White Earth Tribal Nation. Did each of us in the settlement get
    everything we wanted in this compromise?--certainly not. The White
    Earth Tribal Nation has taken the greatest loss of funds considering
    that the White Earth Band comprises 50 percent of members of the MCT,
    and the Results of Research Report sponsored by the Department of
    Interior determined the best allocation was on a per capita basis by
    enrollee. We have negotiated and negotiated--we believe we have put
    forward as many as four or five different alternatives to divide these
    funds. But we also have listened to our fellow MCT Members, made
    compromises, and believe this allocation of funds is the fairest for
    all bands of the MCT and acceptable to the White Earth Tribal Nation.
        We are now thirteen years past the date of the settlement of this
    litigation. The $20 million has not been helping the people of the
    Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as was intended by the litigation, but has
    instead been earning 1 percent interest as we have continued to discuss
    the proper allocation of these funds. While there has been disagreement
    about the allocation of these funds, our people have gone hungry, lived
    in cold homes in the winter, and lost opportunities for education,
    jobs, and other opportunities that might have been available if these
    funds would have been a part of our budget. We do not want this to
    continue. We all have made significant compromises to arrive at this
    point.
        Mr. Chairman, I understand one of the six bands of the Minnesota
    Chippewa Tribe still does not support this bill. However, five bands do
    support this legislation, and I believe that represents a very strong
    reason to move forward with the bill very quickly. The present judgment
    fund was deposited in 1999. There is no reason to delay the
    distribution any longer.
        Thank you for your consideration.
            *Attachment retained in Committee files*
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Charles Wilkinson, Distinguished Professor/Moses
                 Lasky Professor of Law, University of Colorado

        I express my appreciation to Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee for receiving this statement.
        I have been actively involved in Indian matters as a practicing
    lawyer and scholar since 1971. In the 1970s and early 1980s, while I
    was on the faculty of the University of Oregon Law School, I
    represented the Siletz Tribe in the passage of the Siletz Restoration
    Act of 1977 and the Siletz Reservation Act of 1980. My many articles
    and fourteen books include Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials
    (with Getches, Williams, and Fletcher) (West; 6th ed., 2011); Felix S,
    Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law (Managing Editor) (Michie Bobbs-
    Merrill; 1982); American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies
    in a Modern Constitutional Democracy (Yale; 1987); Messages From
    Frank's Landing: Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian Way (University of
    Washington Press; 2000); and Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian
    Nations (W.W. Norton (2005). My most recent book is a comprehensive
    history of the Siletz Tribe, The People Are Dancing Again: A History of
    the Siletz Tribe of Western Oregon (University of Washington Press;
    2010), in which I explored in depth the basic issues involved in Senate
    Bill 908.
        It is my understanding that a question has arisen as to whether the
    Grand Ronde Tribe, and perhaps other tribes, have a legal interest in
    the Siletz Reservation. I will address that issue here.
        The events of the mid-19th century in Western Oregon were
    tumultuous and enormously complicated, but the legal results that
    emerged from that era are straightforward insofar as Senate Bill 908 is
    concerned. The Federal Government moved more than 30 tribes and bands
    to the Siletz Reservation, established by Executive Order on November
    9, 1855; President Pierce took this action under authority granted to
    him by the Table Rock Treaty of September 10, 1853 and other Western
    Oregon treaties. Later, by Executive Order of June 30, 1857, President
    Buchanan proclaimed the Grand Ronde Reservation; he did this pursuant
    to authority granted to him by the Treaty with the Willamette Valley
    Tribes of January 22, 1855, and other Western Oregon treaties. The
    Federal Government moved Western Oregon Indians to that reservation
    also. All of this was haphazardly done. For many of the tribes and
    bands, some of their people went to the Siletz Reservation and some
    went to the Grand Ronde Reservation. In some cases, members of
    individual families ended up on one reservation with other family
    members on the other reservation.
        Over the years, the Federal Government felt an increasing need to
    facilitate ease of administration and create legal order out of the
    complex and often chaotic settlement of the two reservations. The
    Siletz Tribe and Grand Ronde Tribe each became known as a confederation
    of the tribes on its reservation, with the people on each reservation
    being members of the respective confederated tribes. Each confederated
    tribe was acknowledged to be a separate federally recognized tribe.
    Later, the BIA developed tribal rolls for each of the tribes. In the
    Western Oregon Termination Act, each tribe had its own separate roll.
    Then, a generation later, each tribe was restored by separate
    legislation with separate tribal rolls. Today the United States
    continues to recognize the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and
    the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde as two separate tribes with
    separate rolls.
        This process of forcibly moving tribes from their homelands,
    placing several tribes on one reservation, and amalgamating individuals
    in one confederated tribe, in addition to being cruel, was
    ethnologically and politically arbitrary in terms of deviating from
    traditional tribal identities. Yet there is no question about Congress'
    broad constitutional authority to take such action. Similar historical
    progressions have led to other confederated tribes across the nation,
    especially in the Northwest.
        If passed, Senate Bill 908 would declare that future fee-to-trust
    applications by the Siletz Tribe for property within the boundaries of
    the original 1855 Siletz Reservation would be treated as on-reservation
    acquisitions. No other tribe has a legal interest in this kind of
    proposal, just as the Siletz Tribe would have no interest in a similar
    proposal made by another tribe.
        In my judgment, this bill is a most worthy initiative. The land
    within the magnificent 1855 Siletz Reservation was taken from the tribe
    illegally or under intense coercion. Recognizing the 1855 boundaries in
    this fashion provides some measure of long-due justice.

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald L. Fry, Chairman, Confederated Tribes
                               of the Lower Rogue

        Chairman Akaka, Co-Chairman Barrasso, Members of the Committee;
        I am Donald L. Fry. I am an enrolled member and Chairman of the
    Confederated Tribes of the Lower Rogue. I am honored to represent the
    Chetco and Tututni peoples.
        We have concerns with S. 908 and how it will impact our restoration
    efforts.
        The members of the Confederated Tribes of the Lower Rogue are the
    descendants of the Chetco and Tututni Indians who resided in
    southwestern Oregon since time immemorial. After disease and violent
    clashes with invading settlers decimated SW Oregon's tribes, the
    surviving Indians were forcibly removed north to the ``Coast
    Reservation'' in the mid-1850s. Some Chetco and Tututni hid to avoid to
    the bounty hunters who tracked us, or escaped the reservation and came
    back when it was safe to do so. These resilient Indians--the ancestors
    of our Tribe's current members--remained in our traditional homelands.
        The Federal Government has acknowledged our tribal existence since
    at least the 1850s, as evidenced by treaties signed with our ancestors
    in 1851 and 1855.
        In 1954, the Federal Government terminated its relationship with
    the Chetco and Tututni, along with almost sixty other Western Oregon
    tribes and bands. By the 1970s, tribal termination had been discredited
    and was no longer federal policy, and between 1977 and 1989, Congress
    restored federal recognition to six terminated Oregon tribes:
    Confederated Tribes of Siletz; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
    Community of Oregon; Klamath Tribes; Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians;
    Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; and
    Coquille Tribe.
        We have been pursuing our goal of restoring federal recognition of
    our Tribe for over sixteen years. While we struggle to obtain the
    political support needed to introduce a restoration bill, the
    Confederated Tribes of the Lower Rogue are organized as a non-profit
    501(c)(3) organization and work tirelessly to preserve our history and
    culture.
        For these reasons, we urge the Committee not to proceed with
    further consideration of S. 908 until the issues affecting our concerns
    for clarifying our Tribe's Federal status can be identified and
    resolved.