[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                      EXAMINING THE OPPORTUNITIES  
                        AND CHALLENGES OF LAND  
                           CONSOLIDATION IN  
                            INDIAN COUNTRY

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, January 30, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-92

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
 
       	                        ______
	  	  
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

54-708 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2024 
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov 
                   
                                 ------                                

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                     HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair

                JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, PR, Vice Chair

               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Ranking Member

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Doug LaMalfa, CA                         CNMI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Ruben Gallego, AZ
Jerry Carl, AL                       Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jim Moylan, GU                       Ed Case, HI
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                               ---------                                
                                
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, January 30, 2024........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................     1
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Weatherwax, Hon. Marvin, Councilman, Blackfeet Tribal 
      Business Council, Browning, Montana........................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     8
    LeBeau, Hon. Ryman, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
      Eagle Butte, South Dakota..................................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    15
    Kitcheyan, Hon. Victoria, Tribal Council Chairwoman, 
      Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska...........    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    20
    Stainbrook, Cris, President, Indian Land Tenure Foundation, 
      Little Canada, Minnesota...................................    21
        Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    27

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mr. Darryl LaCounte, Director, 
      Statement for the Record...................................    35
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    37
                                     


 
   OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF
                  LAND CONSOLIDATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, January 30, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet M. 
Hageman, [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa; and Leger 
Fernandez.
    Also present: Representative Johnson.

    Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs 
will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
Examining the Opportunities and Challenges of Land 
Consolidation in Indian Country.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o). 
Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. The purpose of today's hearing is to hear from 
tribal leaders, and originally from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, about land fractionation, land consolidation, and the 
challenges that Indian tribes and individual Indian landowners 
face as a result.
    Land fractionation is the result of the policies 
implemented by the Federal Government for American Indians 
during what we refer to as the Allotment Period. Beginning with 
the General Allotment Act of 1887, the Federal Government 
divided tribal lands into 80- or 160-acre sections to be 
allotted to individual tribal members. Any land not allotted 
was sold off, which resulted in approximately 90 million acres 
of Indian land being removed from Indian ownership and control. 
Congress formally ended and repudiated the failed policy of 
allotment with the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, but the 
impacts are still felt today.
    Because individual Indian allotments initially followed 
state laws for inheritance, property interest in individually 
allotted lands were inherited by multiple heirs. When the 
original tribal owners died in testate, that is, without a 
will, the ownership of the land was divided equally amongst 
their heirs. But the physical land itself was not divided, 
resulting in co-ownership of the land between those heirs.
    As time passes and more generations die without writing 
wills, the number of co-owners with a fractionated interest 
increases exponentially. Many of the fractionated interest 
owners only have a small fraction of a claim to the land that 
they own. To put this into perspective, if a parcel of land 
earns $100 for grazing purposes, and an individual interest 
owner has a 2 percent claim for that land, they would only 
receive $2.
    In 2018, after implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program, 
the Department of the Interior estimated that there were 
243,000 landowners who owned nearly 2.5 million interests in 
100,000 fractionated parcels.
    As this Subcommittee has explored in previous hearings, 
barriers to land use and the development of land in Indian 
Country frequently discourage economic development and 
investment. Fractionated lands are another barrier to 
development because generally a majority interest is needed to 
make land use decisions.
    If an allotment has 50 or 100 co-owners, it can be 
unaffordable and logistically prohibitive to gain a majority 
interest agreement for land use. As a result, adjacent 
tribally-controlled land can remain undeveloped, and individual 
Indian landowners do not receive the benefits.
    Congress has attempted to address Indian land fractionation 
in multiple ways, through providing pathways for tribes to 
consolidate lands, creating and reforming the probate process 
for Native Americans, and also creating land buy-back programs 
to purchase fractionated interests from willing sellers, the 
largest of which was the Land Buy-Back Program that was part of 
the Cobell v. Salazar Settlement.
    The Cobell Settlement was negotiated by the Obama 
administration and funded through congressional legislation. 
$1.9 billion was set aside from the $3.4 billion settlement to 
make a concerted effort to resolve fractionization through a 
10-year voluntary Land Buy-Back Program. It has not been as 
successful as we had hoped.
    The Buy-Back Program conducted consolidation actions from 
2012 to 2022 and sent offers to 63,763 individual Indian 
landowners in 53 different locations. Ultimately, $1.69 billion 
was paid out to Indian landowners, increasing or creating 
tribal ownership in over 51,000 tracts of land, with 1,916 
tracts reaching 100 percent tribal trust ownership.
    While this program made some progress in reducing land 
fractionation, the Department of the Interior's own final 
report included two statistics that I would like to highlight 
today. The program identified more than 2.9 million purchasable 
fractional interests, and after the program now there are still 
2.4 million purchasable fractionable interests remaining. And 
even with the concerted 10-year efforts of the Buy-Back 
Program, without further action the rate of fractionization 
will bypass pre-Buy-Back Program levels in just 14 years.
    It is obvious that funding massive buy-back programs is not 
the be all and end all in ending land fractionization. We have 
to do better for Indian Country.
    There are further policy-focused opportunities to reduce 
land fractionation and purchase consolidation within Indian 
reservations. This hearing today will have our witnesses talk 
about their experiences with the Land Buy-Back Program and what 
other efforts tribes, organizations, and individual Indian 
landowners are taking to prevent further fractionization of 
land interests.
    We can all work towards cohesive, interrelated solutions to 
prevent further fractionization and advocate for informed land 
management. This hearing continues this conversation that has 
been happening now for decades. I want to thank the witnesses 
for being with us today. I look forward to your testimony.

    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for 
her statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, and good morning, everyone. 
And thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
    I want to begin today perhaps slightly different. 
Yesterday, we lost N. Scott Momaday. He died in his home is 
Santa Fe, New Mexico. As you all know, his novel ``House of 
Dawn'' won the Pulitzer Prize in 1969 and is largely credited 
with igniting a wave of modern Native American literature.
    Mr. Momaday once said, ``Our very existence consists in our 
imagination of ourselves.'' He showed us the power of 
storytelling and oral tradition, bringing imagination to life. 
He also spoke of the importance of the land and the importance 
of his peoples and his imagination entwined within the land.
    He reminded us that we must have a deep ethical regard for 
the land. We had better learn from it. Surely, that ethic is 
merely latent in ourselves. It must now be activated, I 
believe. We Americans must come again to a moral comprehension 
of earth and air. We must live according to the principle of a 
land ethic. The alternative is that we shall not live at all.
    I think that this poet's words ring true today as we think 
about how do we best allow and help Native Americans regain the 
land and regain full interest in the land that is theirs, 
because today we are discussing the critical importance of the 
United States' trust responsibility to tribes when it comes to 
managing lands and the issues facing land fractionation.
    We know that land fractionation is a direct result of the 
devastated and misguided allotment in the assimilation period 
of the late 19th and early 20th century. The General Allotment 
Act of 1887 was a keystone of those failed policies. I remember 
clearly the maps that we have all seen as the land that was 
once tribal and just shrinks, and shrinks, and shrinks over 
time.
    It dictated that law, the forced conversion of communally-
held tribal lands into separate 80- and 160-acre parcels. 
Fractionation happens when someone passes away, and little by 
little that land is so deeply fractionated. It is difficult to 
manage and difficult to own.
    The Cobell Settlement agreement in 2010 was one of the most 
significant results of the Department of the Interior land 
acquisition programs. The purpose of the settlement was to 
resolve a class action lawsuit regarding the Federal 
Government's accounting and management of over 300 individual 
Indian trust accounts.
    Part of that was the creation of the $1.9 billion Trust 
Land Consolidation Fund to permit DOI to purchase at fair 
market value lands of fractionated ownership from willing 
individual Indian trust beneficiaries.
    The Land Buy-Back Program ran from 2012 to 2022. In these 
10 years, tribal ownership increased by 2.97 million acres 
across 53 locations. While we must recognize that this wasn't 
enough, it was something. With increased land consolidation, 
tribes can exercise tribal sovereignty and self-determination 
over their lands that better suit their community's leads. They 
can actually carry out that land ethic that Momaday calls us 
to.
    The Land Buy-Back Program took significant steps to correct 
misguided policies, and tribes have seen the benefits. However, 
land fractionation continues to be a significant issue. After 
the program expired in 2022, approximately 2.4 million 
fractionated areas remained at 150 locations. That is 5.6 
million acres with an estimated value of several billion 
dollars. The BIA estimates that as of Fiscal Year 2023 it had a 
backlog of more than 32,000 inheritance cases for these lands.
    BIA's 2024 budget requested $30.5 million to hire 22 staff 
to continue the land consolidation efforts and purchase 
fractional interests at an additional five locations. In Fiscal 
Year 2023, they only received $8 million--$8 million--when the 
request was $30.5 million, and we know we needed so much more.
    Giving tribes more control and sovereignty over the lands 
will continue to be a priority of mine on this Committee, and 
it needs to be for the entire Congress. I know the tribes here 
today are going to go into more detail about their experiences 
with the Land Buy-Back Program, and I look forward to hearing 
from you on this issue and on ways in which we can make it 
better and continue our progress to a land ethic.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    I will now introduce our witnesses for our panel. We had 
anticipated that Director LaCounte would be testifying this 
morning on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, we 
were informed this morning that he is ill and unable to attend. 
And while I definitely hope that he gets better soon, I will 
state that I am disappointed in BIA's absence, as their 
involvement in these discussions is critical to finding 
workable solutions. So, hopefully we will have the opportunity 
to engage them before much more time passes.
    First, the Honorable Marvin Weatherwax, Councilman, 
Blackfeet Tribal Business Council, Browning, Montana; the 
Honorable Ryman LeBeau, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
Eagle Butte, South Dakota, thank you for coming back; the 
Honorable Victoria Kitcheyan, Chairwoman, Winnebago Tribe of 
Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska, again, thank you for being in 
front of our Committee again today; and Mr. Cris Stainbrook, 
President, Indian Land Tenure Foundation, Little Canada, 
Minnesota. Thank you all for joining us.
    I would like to remind the witnesses that under Committee 
Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but 
their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the 
light will turn green. When you have 1 minute left, the light 
will turn yellow. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I 
will also allow all witnesses on the panel to testify before we 
begin with our Member questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Marvin Weatherwax 
for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARVIN WEATHERWAX, COUNCILMAN, 
      BLACKFEET TRIBAL BUSINESS COUNCIL, BROWNING, MONTANA

    Mr. Weatherwax. Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 
Marvin Weatherwax, Jr. I am a member of the Blackfeet Tribal 
Business Council and serve as the Chairman of the Coalition of 
Large Tribes.
    Our original reservation spanned from the eastern front of 
the Rocky Mountains to the eastern borders of Montana, from the 
Yellowstone River on the south to the northern border with 
Alberta, Canada. But our land losses were staggering for more 
than a century.
    The failed Federal assimilationist allotment policy 
resulted in the loss of many millions of acres of land across 
Indian Country and hundreds of acres across our reservation 
alone. During the starvation winter of 1883, our chiefs were 
forced to cede 130,000 acres to receive rations. In 1911, we 
were subjected to the Blackfeet allotment where another 156,000 
acres were sold as surplus to non-Indians.
    By 2012, when the Land Buy-Back Program was established, we 
had lost 90 percent of our original reservation and had the 
third highest amount of fractionated land in the United States, 
making use and management of these lands difficult, and in many 
cases impossible, because of the large number of landowners, 
often hundreds of owners per parcel, and the resultant 
difficulty in conducting and securing the consent of those 
landowners for particular use.
    To prevent further loss of lands, we enacted a right of 
first refusal ordinance for on-reservation land sales, which 
has allowed us to receive notice of opportunities for land 
reacquisition so we can move quickly to engage with landowners.
    We have mapped our reservation, so we have data that helps 
us make informed decisions. We devoted extensive efforts to 
community engagement and earned the confidence of reservation 
landowners. Both from our own efforts and with the resources of 
the Land Buy-Back Program, the Blackfeet Tribe has consolidated 
more than 190,000 fractional interests and more than 490,000 
equivalent acres in more than 14,000 transactions.
    Based on the Blackfeet Tribe's experience, I have four 
recommendations. First, we would like to see more flexibility 
in use for the program monies. Second, we would like to see 
more and better BIA investment in technology. Third, the Land 
Buy-Back Program should be expanded to other categories of 
land.
    In sum, we need maximum flexibility in the Land Buy-Back 
Program, namely distribution of monies directly to the tribes 
to use as we see fit each year in one block grant with a single 
audit.
    And, lastly, Congress should direct enforcement of Federal 
land reacquisition statutes that are already on the books.
    Without dramatic funding, we will soon be worse off than we 
were pre-Cobell, of the incessant proliferation of land 
fractionation. In Fiscal Year 2023, DOI requested $80 million 
for land buy-back and got $8 million. In Fiscal Year 2024, OMB 
limited DOI's ask to $8 million. These dribs and drabs are 
insufficient to meet the need. Funding of land buy-back 
programs should be tailored to what is needed to actually 
achieve the objective, not keep us on the hamster wheel of the 
same number as last year.
    I thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Weatherwax follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Marvin Weatherwax, Jr., Member of the 
                   Blackfeet Tribal Business Council

    Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Marvin Weatherwax Jr. and I am 
a member of the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council. I also serve as 
Chairman of the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT), and as a 
Representative of District 15 in the Montana Legislature.
    I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the 
implementation of the Land Buy-Back Program. My Blackfeet Tribe views 
the Program as an important tool to restore Blackfeet ownership of 
Reservation lands. Our Tribe has enacted laws to maximize the utility 
of monies available under the program and devoted our own resources 
separately to land reacquisition as part of our broader efforts to 
restore as much land as possible from our 1855 Treaty to Tribal 
ownership and control. We believe removal of current bureaucratic 
impediments is central to achieving the goals of the Land Buy Back 
Program.
    Our story mirrors that of other large land base tribes. The 
original Treaty Reservation spanned from the eastern front of the Rocky 
Mountains to the eastern border of Montana and from the Yellowstone 
River on the South all the way to Northern border with Alberta, Canada. 
But our land losses were staggering for more than a century. The failed 
federal assimilationist allotment policy resulted in the loss of many 
millions of acres of lands across Indian Country, and hundreds of 
thousands of acres across the Blackfeet Reservation alone. During the 
starvation winter of 1883, our Chiefs were forced to sign another 
treaty to receive rations in exchange for 130,000 acres of land that 
was to be given to the U.S. Forest Service. In 1911, the Blackfeet were 
subjected to the ``Blackfeet Allotment'' where another 156,000 acres 
were sold as ``surplus'' to non-Indians.
    By 2012, when the Land Buy-Back Program was established, the 
Blackfeet Tribe had lost 90% of our original Reservation and had the 
third highest amount of fractionated land in the United States, making 
use and management of these lands difficult, and in many cases 
impossible, because of the large number of landowners--often hundreds 
of owners per parcel--and the resultant difficulty in contacting and 
securing the consent of those landowners for a particular use. A large 
percentage of the fractionated interest owners are Indians that are not 
enrolled in our Tribe, but instead are members of other tribes, which 
makes land use and management decisions even more complex.
    For the past three decades, well before the birth of the Land Buy-
Back Program, the Blackfeet Tribe has dedicated considerable resources 
to the restoration of our Reservation land base. We have enacted laws, 
dedicated Tribal revenues and developed Tribal programs to reacquire 
Reservation lands within our Treaty Reservation boundaries. To prevent 
further loss of lands, we enacted a ``right of first of refusal'' 
ordinance for on-Reservation land sales which has allowed us to receive 
notice of opportunities for land reacquisition so we can move quickly 
to engage with landowners.
    Our Tribal GIS staff have extensively mapped our Reservation, 
including allotments so we have data that helps us make informed 
decisions. Most importantly, our Tribal staff devoted extensive efforts 
to community engagement to earn the confidence of Reservation 
landowners.
    Both from our own efforts and with the resources of the Land Buy-
Back Program, over the last decade, the Blackfeet Tribe has been 
successful in the consolidation of more than 196,000 fractional 
interests and more than 490,00 equivalent acres in more than 14,000 
land transactions.

    Based on the Blackfeet Tribe's experience, I have four concrete 
recommendations that would make the Program more successful without 
additional funding, although I note that additional funding is needed 
and warmly welcomed:

  1.  First, we would like to see more flexibility in uses for Program 
            monies. The Land Buy-Back Program is a narrow but effective 
            tool that provides a means to restore Tribal ownership of 
            fractionated interests in Trust allotments. The Blackfeet 
            Tribe, like other large land base tribes, has developed a 
            Land Department and has charged it with the management of 
            land and resources. The Blackfeet Tribe would like to be 
            able to utilize Program funding to support the Land 
            Department as it continues to grow in ways to support the 
            agri-businesses of the Tribe and Tribal members; to 
            implement the HEARTH Act for expansion of on-Reservation 
            housing stock; and to track and process data relating to 
            fractionated interest holders, GPS, land use, water rights, 
            precipitation, sunlight, leases, and rights-of-ways 
            management. The flexibility would not create additional 
            costs.

  2.  Second, we would like to see more and better BIA investments in 
            technology. The Bureau utilizes an antiquated and 
            ineffective system to manage land. Our Tribe and others are 
            utilizing and creating innovative and cutting-edge 
            technology to better manage the tribal land and resources. 
            Our landowner engagement has been effective because we have 
            ``reinvented the wheel,'' by recreating federal data to 
            which we are denied access (TAAMS). But our Land Department 
            needs training, hardware, software and planning to achieve 
            both short-term and long-term goals, and we need ready 
            access to federal land management systems' data. This 
            flexibility would not create additional costs.

  3.  Third, Land Buy-Back Program expanded to other categories of 
            land, such as in the Blackfeet Tribe's case, lands 
            alienated in the Blackfeet Allotment Act of 1911. By 
            allowing Land Buy-Back funds to be used to acquire lands 
            beyond ``fractionated interests,'' the true meaning ``Land 
            Buy Back'' can be fulfilled. Our land losses took many 
            forms and the Land Buy-Back monies should have maximum 
            flexibility to allow for reacquisition of any lands 
            alienated from original Treaty boundaries. Again, this 
            flexibility would not create additional costs.

  4.  Lastly, Congress should direct the Department of the Interior to 
            enforce other federal land reacquisition statutes that are 
            already on the books. For example, the Indian appropriation 
            act of September 21, 1922,\1\ provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 42 Stat., 994, 995 (``1922 Act'').

               SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby 
        authorized and directed to issue a patent to the duly 
        authorized missionary board, or other proper authority, of any 
        religious organization engaged in mission or school work on any 
        Indian reservation for such lands thereon as have been 
        heretofore set apart to and are now being actually and 
        beneficially used and occupied by such organization solely for 
        mission or school purposes, the area so patented to not exceed 
        one hundred and sixty acres to any one organization at any 
        station: Provided, that such patent shall provide that when no 
        longer used for mission or school purposes said lands shall 
        revert to the Indian owners.  (Emphasis supplied). The 1922 Act 
        placed restrictions of fee patents associated with Indian 
        Boarding Schools in direct response to abuses by churches 
        whereby they were acquiring fee patents to many thousands of 
        acres of reservation lands far in excess of any education needs 
        and they were likewise using the Indian Boarding Schools as 
        otherwise illegal child/slave labor under abhorrent conditions. 
        The 1922 Act requires the return of thousands of acres of land 
        to tribes right now. Statutes like the 1922 Act are a ready 
        supplement to the Land Buy-Back Program and their enforcement 
        would bolster reservation economies and likely provide other 
        important health and education benefits--all without any 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        additional funding.

    On behalf of the Blackfeet Tribe, I appreciate the opportunity to 
provide our perspectives on the Land Buy-Back Program. We look forward 
to working with the Subcommittee and any Administration to ensure its 
continued and greater success on our Reservation and for other large 
land base tribes.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Marvin Weatherwax, 
             Councilman, Blackfeet Tribal Business Council

The Honorable Marvin Weatherwax did not submit responses to the 
Committee by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed 
record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In your testimony, it was mentioned that the Blackfeet 
Nation has utilized innovative technology when it comes to land 
management including mapping alternatives.

    1a) Would it be useful to have regional organizations collaborate 
on land management?

    1b) How can Congress help to support tribal land offices to have 
access to data and maps from the Department of the Interior?

    Question 2. Could you expand on how denied access to TAAMS has 
hindered land management practices for the Blackfeet Nation?

    Question 3. In your opinion, how good of a job did the Land Buy-
Back Program do in targeting lands that had a high economic value to 
consolidate?

    Question 4. How has your tribe approached long-term land use 
planning?

    4a) How has fractionation and land consolidation impacted the 
effectiveness of long-term use planning?

    Question 5. The Department created GIS maps and a database for use 
in the Land Buy-Back Program and has stated that tribes have access to 
that data to see the lands and help make land planning decisions.

    5a) Does the Blackfeet Nation use this data specifically. And if 
yes, how accessible is this data? And If no, please explain why not.

    Question 6. The Land Buy Back Report acknowledges that land 
fractionation will exceed pre-program levels in 14 years without 
further action.

    6a) Can you further expand from your testimony on any legislative 
or policy solutions that Congress should consider to help further 
consolidate fractional interests?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Ryman LeBeau for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RYMAN LeBEAU, CHAIRMAN, CHEYENNE 
          RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, EAGLE BUTTE, SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. LeBeau. [Speaking Native language.] I said I shake your 
hand with a good heart, and we thank you for allowing us this 
time.
    Chair Hageman, and members of the Committee, I am Ryman 
LeBeau, the Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. I am 
here for my Lakota people.
    The Cheyenne River Reservation is 2.8 million acres in 
north-central South Dakota along the Cheyenne, Moreau, and 
Missouri Rivers. We are the fourth largest reservation in 
Indian Country. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is four bands of 
the Lakota, and these four bands are the Miniconjou, the 
Itazipcho, Sihasapa, Oohenunpa. We are one of the great Sioux 
Nation Tribes, or as we say the [Speaking Native language], the 
seven council fires.
    In general, we allocate grazing units and farms to our 
tribal members for agriculture development. Grazing units are 
typically 1,000 to 2,000 acres because our animal units require 
28 acres for a cow-calf pair. We have 85 percent unemployment 
in the winter and 75 percent unemployment in the summer. We 
need value-added agriculture to provide employment for our 
people and generate economic activity. We must find a brighter 
future for our young people.
    We have a tribal buffalo herd with 2,000 head. And we would 
like to grow our herd, so we bought a small processing plant in 
Mobridge, South Dakota, just across the Missouri River from our 
reservation. And the business is doing great. They are 
currently trying to get those products, buffalo and beef, back 
into our local grocery stores, which the Tribe owns.
    The 1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty reserved all western 
South Dakota from the low water mark on the east bank of the 
Missouri River to Wyoming as our permanent home. That is about 
27 million acres. And we also reserved 44 million acres of 
unceded Indian territory and hunting lands in North Dakota, 
Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado.
    America pledged its honor to keep the peace. But when 
Custer discovered gold in the Black Hills in 1874, President 
Grant decided he could no longer defend our Great Sioux Nation. 
In 1876, Custer attacked us at the Battle of Little Big Horn, 
and we defended our women and children. Congress passed the 
1877 Taking Act to seize our Indian territory, hunting lands, 
and the Black Hills.
    In 1889, just before North and South Dakota reached 
statehood, Congress took another 9.5 million acres of land in 
central and western South Dakota from us and divided the Great 
Sioux Reservation into six smaller reservations including 
Cheyenne River Reservation. In 1890, the BIA police killed 
Sitting Bull and the cavalry massacred our people at Wounded 
Knee.
    Right now, we are seeking to recover our sacred site at 
Wounded Knee under our own Nation title, together with the 
Oglala Sioux Tribe in restricted fee status. The House recently 
passed H.R. 3371, The Wounded Knee Memorial and Sacred Site 
Act, and we appreciate the Committee's support.
    The 1868 Treaty and the 1889 so-called Sioux Agreement 
provided for allotment of tribal lands to individuals. In 1908, 
Congress opened the Cheyenne River Reservation for non-Indian 
homesteading. In 1950, Congress took our best 104,000 acres of 
Missouri River bottom land for the Flood Control Act.
    As a result of this history, we do not have enough 
agricultural land for our Lakota people. We have roughly 
900,000 acres of tribal trust lands and 600,000 acres of 
allotted Indian trust lands and 1.3 million acres of non-Indian 
fee land on the reservation.
    Many of non-Indian neighbors are elderly, and they would 
like to sell their land to us. Article III of our 1868 Treaty 
provides for the United States of America to set aside further 
lands for agriculture for our Lakota people, and we call upon 
Congress to assist us and continue to buy back fractionated 
lands and to recover fee lands to provide the basis for jobs 
and value-added agriculture.
    First, with respect, we ask Congress to support the $30 
million BIA request for Fiscal Year 2024 buy-back programs. 
Second, with respect, we ask Congress to allocate $400 million 
for the reservation fee land purchases.
    In 1934, Congress authorized $20 million annually for such 
purchases, but these were never funded and the work needs to be 
done now because our Lakota people population has rebounded 
since the wars of 1800s. We need a solid base for jobs to make 
our permanent home on our reservations a livable home.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. LeBeau follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Ryman LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
                   of the Cheyenne River Reservation
    Anpetu waste, Hau Kola. Good Morning Friends. Chair Hageman, and 
Members of the Committee, Greetings from the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe. My name is Ryman LeBeau and I serve as Chairman of the Cheyenne 
River Sioux Tribe.
    The Cheyenne River Reservation is composed of 2.8 Million acres of 
high prairie grassland, interspersed with a few ridges of farmland 
along the Cheyenne, Moreau and Missouri Rivers. We are the Lakota 
People of the Three Rivers. Our land is Buffalo Country, and we also 
raise horses and cattle. Because an animal unit for grazing is 28 
acres, we allocated our Range Units in 1,000 or 2,000 acre lease units, 
with our tribal members receiving allocations for grazing. That 
provides a living for approximately 600 to 700 families. At Cheyenne 
River, we also have tribal government and retail jobs, but we have 
26,400 people, so our unemployment ranges up to 85% in the winter.
    At Cheyenne River, under the Buy Back Program, the BIA spent $90 
Million for almost 35,000 fractionated interests and the equivalent of 
300,000 acres. Our Tribal Members received a large part of the payment 
for the land. So, the program was a strong effort, yet there is much 
left to be done.
Lakota Belief

    In our belief, Tunkasila, Wakan Tanka, Grandfather, the Creator 
gave the first woman and first man the breath of life at Wind Cave in 
the Black Hills. Together with life, Tunkasila blessed us with liberty 
and a sacred duty to care for Unci Maka, Grandmother Earth. Our is the 
original land of our Lakota Oyate, prior to America.
1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty

    Our 1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty recognizes 44 million acres of 
unceded Great Sioux Nation Indian territory and hunting lands in North 
Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado, and over 27 
million acres of Great Sioux Reservation--our ``permanent home''--in 
North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota, with our boundary at the low 
water mark on the east bank of the Missouri River and including our 
existing reservations east of the Missouri.
1877 Taking Act: Black Hills

    In 1876, President Grant decided to stop defending the Great Sioux 
Reservation and to force the Great Sioux Nation to cede the Black 
Hills, our unceded Indian territory and hunting lands. After our 
defense of our 1876 Lakota-Nakota-Dakota People at the Battle of the 
Little Big Horn, Congress enacted the 1877 Act taking the Black Hills 
and our unceded and hunting lands. In 1980, the Supreme Court held that 
the Act taking the Black Hills and our other lands was unconstitutional 
because the Act violated the 5th Amendment and violated the 1868 
Treaty. United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).
Act of March 2, 1889: Division of the Great Sioux Reservation

    In advance of North Dakota and South Dakota statehood in 1889, 
Congress divided the Great Sioux Reservation into six separate 
reservations, including the Cheyenne River Reservation, and further 
declaring 9.5 million acres of land in central and western South Dakota 
in between the new reduced reservations.
The 1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty and the 1889 so-called Sioux 
        Agreement

    Our 1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty and the 1889 Agreement 
authorized allotment of reservation lands to Lakota tribal members on 
the Cheyenne River Reservation and the BIA started to allot lands on 
the reservation.
1908 Surplus Land Act

    In Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1983), the Supreme Court 
explained America's Allotment Process:

        On May 29, 1908, Congress authorized the Secretary of the 
        Interior to open 1.6 million acres of the Cheyenne River Sioux 
        Reservation for homesteading. Act of May 29, 1908, ch. 218, 35 
        Stat. 460 et seq. (Act or Cheyenne River Act) . . . In the 
        latter half of the 19th century, large sections of the Western 
        States and Territories were set aside for Indian reservations. 
        Towards the end of the century, however, Congress increasingly 
        adhered to the view that the Indian tribes should abandon their 
        nomadic lives on the communal reservations and settle into an 
        agrarian economy on privately owned parcels of land. This shift 
        was fueled in part by the belief that individualized farming 
        would speed the Indians' assimilation into American society and 
        in part by the continuing demand for new lands for the waves of 
        homesteaders moving west. As a result of these combined 
        pressures, Congress passed a series of surplus land Acts at the 
        turn of the century to force Indians onto individual allotments 
        carved out of reservations and to open up unallotted lands for 
        non-Indian settlement. Initially, Congress legislated its 
        Indian allotment program on a national scale, but by the time 
        of the Act of May 29, 1908, Congress was dealing with the 
        surplus land question on a reservation-by-reservation basis, 
        with each surplus land Act employing its own statutory 
        language, the product of a unique set of tribal negotiation and 
        legislative compromise . . .

        [T]he Act strongly suggest that the unallotted opened lands 
        would, for the immediate future, remain an integral part of the 
        Cheyenne River Reservation. In Sec. 1 of the Act, the Secretary 
        was authorized to set aside portions of the opened lands ``for 
        agency, school, and religious purposes, to remain reserved as 
        long as needed, and as long as agency, school, or religious 
        institutions are maintained thereon for the benefit of said 
        Indians.'' . . . Most of the members of the Tribe obtained 
        individual allotments on the lands opened by the Act.

    As a result of the Allotment Policy and the Cheyenne River Act, the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe retains approximately 900,000 acres of 
Tribal Trust Lands and roughly 600,000 acres of Allotted Indian Trust 
Lands.
Fractionated Lands and the Land Buy Back Program

    The Indian Land Tenure Foundation explains the problem of 
fractionated lands as follows:

        For over a century, Indian families have seen valuable land 
        resources diminish as fractionated ownership increases with 
        each passing generation. As a result of the General Allotment 
        Act of 1887 (also called the Dawes Act), reservation land was 
        divided up and allotted to individual tribal members. When an 
        allottee died, title ownership was divided up among all of the 
        heirs, but the land itself was not physically divided. As such, 
        each Indian heir received an undivided interest in the land. 
        Now, as each generation passes on, the number of owners grows 
        exponentially, which has resulted in the highly fractionated 
        ownership of much Indian land today.

        Parcels with fractionated ownership can have hundreds or even 
        thousands of owners. With so many owners, individual income 
        from the land is minimal--sometimes less than what it costs the 
        federal government to process the payment. In addition, land 
        use is compromised because an undivided interest owner must 
        gain consent from a majority of the parcel's owners to do 
        anything with the land. This makes it nearly impossible for any 
        one of the owners to use the land for agriculture, business 
        development or a home site, all uses that would improve quality 
        of life for Indian people.

    On its website, the BIA explains the Land Buy Back Program as 
follows:

        The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back Program 
        or the Program) implemented the land consolidation component of 
        the Cobell v Salazar Settlement Agreement which provided a $1.9 
        billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund (Fund) to purchase 
        fractional interests in trust or restricted land from willing 
        sellers at fair market value. Consolidated interests were 
        immediately restored to Tribal trust ownership for uses 
        benefiting the reservation community and Tribal members.

        The Program was established in December 2012 and the 10-year 
        period for its implementation of land consolidation efforts 
        came to an end November 24, 2022.

    In 2015, at the outset of the program, Mike Connor, the Deputy 
Secretary of Interior described the Buy Back Program and our initial 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Buy Back agreement:

        The agreements with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the 
        Cheyenne River Reservation in South Dakota and the Prairie Band 
        Potawatomi Nation in Kansas detail what each tribal government 
        will do to help implement the Buy-Back Program and provide 
        resources to facilitate outreach and education. The Department 
        has thus far entered into cooperative or other agreements with 
        nearly 20 sovereign tribal nations.

        ``We continue to be encouraged by the growing momentum and 
        excitement about the Buy-Back Program across Indian Country,'' 
        said Deputy Secretary Connor. ``As we have made clear, a 
        significant factor in the Program's success is the ability to 
        work effectively with tribal leadership to best tailor outreach 
        and information to their community. Working closely with the 
        Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Prairie Band Potawatomi 
        Nation, we can maximize our ability to provide landowners with 
        the information they need to make informed decisions about 
        their land through this voluntary program.''

        Land fractionation is a serious problem across Indian Country. 
        As lands are passed down through generations, they gain more 
        owners. Many tracts now have hundreds and even thousands of 
        individual owners. Because it is difficult to gain landowner 
        consensus, the lands often lie idle and cannot be used for any 
        beneficial purpose. There are more than 245,000 owners of three 
        million fractionated interests, spanning approximately 150 
        Indian reservations, who are eligible to participate in the 
        Buy-Back Program.

        The Buy-Back Program was created to implement the land 
        consolidation component of the Cobell Settlement, which 
        provided $1.9 billion to consolidate fractional land interests 
        across Indian Country. It allows interested individual owners 
        to receive payments for voluntarily selling their land. 
        Consolidated interests are immediately transferred to tribal 
        governments and stay in trust for uses benefiting the tribes 
        and their members.
Administration Proposal--AS-IA Bryan Newland May 2023 Appropriation 
        Testimony:

    The Biden Administration proposes continuity for the Indian Land 
Consolidation Program in AS-IA Bryan Newland's FY 2024 BIA Request:

        BIA requests $30.5 million, a $22.5 million increase above 2023 
        enacted, for the Indian Land Consolidation Program (ILCP), 
        which purchases fractional interests from willing individual 
        Indian landowners and conveys those interests to the Tribe with 
        jurisdiction. ILCP funding recognizes the ongoing need to 
        continue to address fractionation on Indian lands while also 
        focusing support on Tribes' plans for and adaptation to climate 
        change. This program is especially important since the Land 
        Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (LBBP), established as part 
        of the Cobell Settlement, ended in November 2022. The ICLP has 
        incorporated lessons learned from the LBBP and the previous 
        ILCP in BIA to ensure effective program implementation.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Proposed Solutions

    The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe supports the Administration's 
Request for FY 2024 Funding for $30.5 million for the Indian Land 
Consolidation Program (ILCP).

   Additional Funding: $400 Million for Reservation Fee Land

    In the early 1900s, Congress believed that Indian Reservation lands 
were in excess of the needs of Indian nations. That was not true for 
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Reservation. 
Indeed, in the 1950s, America called upon the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe to once again sacrifice, this time 104,000 acres of our best 
Missouri River bottom land taken for Flood Control downstream on the 
Missouri River. In building the dam that created Lake Oahe, significant 
lands were flooded that stripped the Reservation of our great oak 
trees, corn production, the best flood plain farming lands and 
residential lands on the Reservation.

    Economic development is a serious challenge for the Cheyenne River 
Sioux Tribe. Unemployment is 85% in the winter months, with winter 
temperatures reaching below ^20 degrees Fahrenheit, and with wind 
chill, temperatures feel as low as ^50 degrees Fahrenheit. In the 
summer, unemployment exceeds 75%. The extreme unemployment on the 
Cheyenne River Reservation leads to a myriad of social economic 
problems including low educational attainment, drug and alcohol abuse, 
violent crime, family dislocation and high teenage pregnancy, 
depression and suicide, among other things.

    Ziebach County was the very poorest county in America in the 2010 
Census, based on per capita income. Ziebach County is the fourth 
poorest county in America in the 2020 Census: 47.91% poverty rate, 
1,100 people in poverty, and 2,296 population, according to the World 
Population Review, visited on January 1, 2024. Dewey County is the 18th 
poorest county in America: 35.59% poverty rate, 1,858 people living in 
poverty, and 5,221 population. Our tribal records, with 26,400 tribal 
members, indicate that the Census represents a severe undercount of our 
tribal population with thousands more of our Lakota People living in 
poverty.

    We need additional lands in order to produce more value added 
Agriculture. Recently, the Cheyenne River Buffalo Corporation applied 
for funding for a USDA Grant for Buffalo Processing and Senator Thune 
wrote a letter to support value added Agriculture:

        As a long-time proponent for agriculture as a means to 
        strengthen rural economies, I write . . . As you know, 
        producers have faced significant market disruptions for several 
        years. The largest meatpackers in the country have seen record 
        margins, while local ranchers and farmers have struggled just 
        to make ends meet. While I will continue to pursue legislative 
        and regulatory policies to address issues impacting the 
        livestock industry, I am wholly pleased to advocate on behalf 
        of entities seeking to expand small meat processing capacity.

        The CRST Buffalo Authority Corporation is an independent, 
        tribally-owned and chartered organization, whose primary 
        mission is to promote and develop a sustainable buffalo herd 
        for the benefit of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, our state, 
        and the American public. With the largest tribally-owned herd 
        in the nation and through a value-added approach to managing 
        their nearly 2000 head of buffalo, the corporation currently 
        utilizes a small meat processing facility located in Mobridge, 
        South Dakota. Should they receive funding, the CRST Buffalo 
        Authority Corporation plans to construct a new, state-of-the-
        art buffalo processing facility . . . South Dakota's producers 
        work hard to raise high-quality livestock, and we need to 
        invest in expanded processing capacity to help create more 
        market opportunities and meet consumer demand for their 
        products.

    The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe needs the value added agriculture 
that Buffalo production and other livestock production represents 
because we need jobs for our Lakota people to make our Cheyenne River 
Reservation a livable home.

    Through land consolidation purchases, the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe must recover reservation fee lands for value added agriculture to 
feed and employ our Lakota people and Congress should help us. In 
Article III, the 1868 Treaty provides that the Great Sioux Reservation 
should have additional lands for tribal members:

        If it should appear from actual survey or other satisfactory 
        examination of said tract of land that it contains less than 
        160 acres of tillable land for each person who, at the time, 
        may be authorized to reside on it under the provisions of this 
        treaty, and a very considerable number of such persons shall be 
        disposed to commence cultivating the soil as farmers, the 
        United States agrees to set apart, for the use of said Indians, 
        as herein provided, such additional quantity of arable land, 
        adjoining to said reservation, or as near to the same as it can 
        be obtained, as may be required to provide the necessary 
        amount.

    As anticipated by Article III of our 1868 Treaty, Indian Land 
Consolidation requires re-acquisition of large areas of fee land, 
especially in light of our Native American population growth. In 1980, 
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's population was 12,500 and today our 
population is 26,400. Indian Land Consolidation should include $400 
Million for the purchase of Indian Lands on reservations, with large 
areas of fee lands, including the Cheyenne River Reservation with our 
1.3 Million acres of fee lands.

   Partition Fractionated Indian Trust Lands Upon Request

    Fractionation of Indian lands is especially a problem for economic 
development. Individual Indians may own a 5% undivided interest in a 
160 acre parcel, which would be equivalent to 8 acres were the 
fractional interest. BIA typically requires all landowners to agree to 
partition (divide) Indian allotted lands, so the native landowner 
cannot partition his undivided land interests to use their 8 acres for 
a home-site without a huge transactional effort. BIA should amend its 
rules to allow an Indian trust landowner to partition his undivided 
interest in allotted Indian trust lands without that transactional 
effort.

   Native Nation Title: Restricted Fee Lands

    America recognized that our Native Sovereign Nations owned our 
Native lands, and sought title from us for American lands, as we 
reserved our permanent homelands by treaty, and settlers were forbidden 
from occupying Native lands while the United States protected our 
Native lands with Indian ``trust title.'' While Indian trust title, 
that is the United States of America holding land in trust for Indian 
tribes, is a useful means to protect Indian lands from alienation, yet 
without more flexibility, Indian trust title can stifle economic 
development. The Secretary of the Interior recently re-issued updated 
Federal Indian trust regulations, 25 CFR Part 151, which provide for 
the recovery of Native lands in the name of the United States of 
America for the benefit of Native Sovereign Nations, yet do not allow 
for the recovery of Native home lands in restricted fee status in the 
name of our Native Nations.

    We are asking Congress to enact legislation to further our nation-
to-nation treaties and protect our Native Sovereign Nation homelands 
through provisions for:

     Issuance of Native Nation Restricted Fee Title to Protect 
            Nation homelands with the status of Indian Country, subject 
            to the restriction that the land may not be alienated 
            without consent of both the Native Nation title holder and 
            the U.S. Congress;

     Affirmation that our Native Nation fee lands are under 
            Native Nation self-government, including civil and criminal 
            jurisdiction, with annexation to Native Nation reservations 
            as the permanent home of our native peoples, and protection 
            by Federal laws and treaties safeguarding Indian lands, 
            including any and all protection for Indian trust lands and 
            at the election of the Native Nation title holder, 
            treatment as a Federal enclave;

     Pre-emption of state and local taxation, and pre-emption 
            of state law or regulations that may interfere with Native 
            Nation self-determination and self-government; and

     Provision for Tribal Government authority concerning value 
            added agriculture, economic development, and governmental 
            services, including housing, health care, education, and 
            other tribal government activities, without secretarial 
            sign-off.

    In this way, Native Nation Title and restricted fee land can 
forward America's long-standing Indian Self-Determination Policy.
Conclusion

    Fractionated interests are the result of America's colonial 
treatment of Indian lands. A more modern approach will move us past the 
fractionation problem by eliminating BIA's excessive red tape in the 
management of Indian allotted trust lands.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Ryman LeBeau, Chairman, 
                       Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

The Honorable Ryman LeBeau did not submit responses to the Committee by 
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Please expand on your testimony regarding using 
restricted fee status to encourage land consolidation and reduce 
fractionation.

    1a) What specific legislation should be pursued to make that 
possible?

    Question 2. In your opinion, how can Congress best pursue the idea 
of allowing and/or encouraging land partition of fractionated parcels? 
What process will be best for the tribe and the affected landowners?

    Question 3. In your opinion, how good of a job did the Land Buy-
Back Program do in targeting lands that had a high economic value to 
consolidate?

    Question 4. How has your tribe approached long-term land use 
planning?

    4a) How has fractionation and land consolidation impacted the 
effectiveness of long-term use planning?

    Question 5. The Department created GIS maps and a database for use 
in the Land Buy-Back Program and has stated that tribes have access to 
that data to see the lands and help make land planning decisions.

    5a) Does the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe use this data specifically. 
And if yes, how accessible is this data? And If no, please explain why 
not.

    Question 6. The Land Buy Back Report acknowledges that land 
fractionation will exceed pre-program levels in 14 years without 
further action.

    6a) Can you further expand from your testimony on any legislative 
or policy solutions that Congress should consider to help further 
consolidate fractional interests?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony, and I am proud 
of the fact that the Wounded Knee Memorial bill came out of 
this Committee, has gone to the House, and I am hoping that we 
can get that through. And I am excited to come and celebrate 
with you when we are able to move forward with that project.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Victoria Kitcheyan 
for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VICTORIA KITCHEYAN, TRIBAL COUNCIL 
  CHAIRWOMAN, WINNEBAGO TRIBE OF NEBRASKA, WINNEBAGO, NEBRASKA

    Ms. Kitcheyan. Good morning, Chair Hageman and Ranking 
Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the Committee. My name 
is Victoria Kitcheyan, and I am the Chairwoman of the Winnebago 
Tribe of Nebraska. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
this testimony.
    The Winnebago people make our home along the hills and the 
banks of the Missouri River in northeastern Nebraska and 
northwestern Iowa. However, the path that led my people to call 
this home and our reservation was long and traumatic.
    The Winnebago people are originally from Wisconsin. In the 
1800s, we were forcibly removed by the United States from 
Wisconsin to Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, and finally, in 
1865, to the Winnebago Indian Reservation in Nebraska and Iowa.
    Our 1865 Treaty promised that this would be a home for the 
Winnebago forever. Our ancestors suffered through immeasurable 
pains to secure a forever home. Through these removals, our 
culture and way of life was disrupted. Many Winnebago died 
along the way, and we were separated from the lands to which 
our culture was closely tied.
    Thank you for mentioning Scott Momaday and the work that he 
did, and he also talked about tribes and Indians being 
intrinsically tied to the land. And when we are removed from 
the land, it impacts us throughout everything. Knowing this 
harsh history strengthens our fight to protect and restore 
homelands.
    By the time the General Allotment Act became law, the 
Federal Government had been imposing allotment policies on the 
Winnebago for over 20 years. For example, the Winnebago Removal 
Act of 1863 allotted Winnebago head of families 80 acres for 
cultivation and improvement. As a result of those policies, the 
Tribe just owned one-third of the reservation by 1913.
    The Tribe is still feeling the impact of those detrimental 
allotment policies. Our remaining land was placed in trust to 
stop the rapid loss of land. Trust land, however, has had 
terrible long-term consequences for the Tribe. Over the last 
seven generations, much of our land has become highly 
fractionated, weakening our ability to exercise our 
sovereignty, self-determination, and limiting our ability to 
develop housing, agriculture, and overall economic gain.
    The Tribe is very appreciative of the efforts of Elouise 
Cobell, along with Winnebago tribal leader Louis LaRose and 
many others that resulted in the Cobell Settlement. A component 
of the settlement was the trust land consolidation, which was 
implemented with the Land Buy-Back Program.
    In May 2016, the Tribe signed an agreement with the 
Department of the Interior to implement the program. We 
participated in two rounds. Through those rounds, approximately 
$17 million in offers were accepted for 5,700 equivalent acres.
    The Tribe as well as individual tribal members benefited 
significantly from the program. They used proceeds to pay off 
debt, create savings and investments for long-term use, helped 
purchase vehicles, homes, and other necessities for the family. 
And for the Tribe, the increased control of the land has helped 
boost the Tribe's economic growth and community development 
efforts.
    In particular, the program has been critical to tribal 
farming efforts because we have more usable agriculture land. 
Just this year, Ho-Chunk Farms, a wholly-owned farming company 
of the Tribe, will farm 7,000 tribal acres while providing 
jobs, training, and income for the Tribe.
    While funding authority for the program has ended, the 
Tribe is committed to building on successes of the program. We 
want to work with Congress and the Administration to overcome 
challenges and create opportunities. Our recommendations are: 
(1) take down bureaucratic hurdles that often so exist when the 
Tribe is trying to do something; (2) interpret existing 
regulations in favor of the Tribe rather than using them as 
reasons to do nothing; (3) provide oversight to ensure local 
agencies are carrying out the intent of Congress; (4) continue 
to implement laws that allow tribes to make local decisions and 
set tribal policies that fit the unique need of the Tribe.
    For example, under existing agriculture leasing 
regulations, the Tribe has implemented a lease policy where 
tribal entities match the highest bidder. This has resulted in 
higher bidding of this land. It has been very successful for 
the Tribe and our wholly-owned company.
    And (5) additional Federal funding would help sustain the 
gains that have been made in addressing the fractionation 
problem.
    In conclusion, the Tribe has the capability to use its 
existing systems of creating tribal entities to achieve certain 
goals, one of which is land acquisition and consolidation. 
Using lessons learned and drawing on past successes can help 
the Tribe be successful in its efforts.
    The Tribe looks forward to continuing to work with the 
Subcommittee and the Department of the Interior in an effort to 
solve Indian Country's fractionation problem.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to 
answer questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kitcheyan follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Victoria Kitcheyan, Chairwoman,
                      Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

    Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
Members of the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs. My name is 
Victoria Kitcheyan, and I have the honor of serving as the Chairwoman 
of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (``Tribe'' or ``Winnebago''). Thank 
you for the opportunity to provide testimony at today's hearing on 
``Examining the Opportunities and Challenges of Land Consolidation in 
Indian Country.''
I. WINNEBAGO HOMELANDS

    Today, the Winnebago people make our home on a reservation along 
the hills and banks of the Missouri River in Northeastern Nebraska and 
Northwestern Iowa. However, the path that led my people to ultimately 
call this reservation home was a long and traumatic one. My ancestors 
were pressured to cede their lands and leave what is now the State of 
Wisconsin. This led to treaties in 1829, 1832, and 1837. Our 1837 
treaty resulted in the Winnebago people being removed from Wisconsin to 
a reservation in Iowa.
    The Winnebago people were removed once again in 1846 to two 
separate locations in Minnesota. Then, after the Dakota War of 1862, 
the Winnebago, who were not involved in the conflict, were forced to 
leave our lands in Minnesota and relocate to ``an undesirable parcel of 
land'' on the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota. The conditions 
there were so horrendous that many of our people died from ``starvation 
and exposure.'' Fighting for survival, many Winnebago people fled from 
South Dakota and sought refuge among the Omaha Tribe in what is now the 
State of Nebraska.
    In 1864, ``twelve hundred starving Winnebago'' relocated themselves 
to the bottomland where Blackbird Creek flows into the Missouri River. 
Subsequently, a Winnebago delegation went to Washington, DC to 
negotiate the sale of part of the Omaha reservation to the Winnebago 
Tribe. In 1865, the Winnebago purchased on hundred thousand acres of 
the north end of the Omaha Tribe's reservation. A treaty was signed in 
1865 that exchanged the Winnebago Tribe's land on the Crow Creek 
Reservation in South Dakota for our new reservation in Nebraska.
    The Winnebago Tribe's Treaty of 1865 promised that land would be 
``set apart for the occupation and future home of the Winnebago 
Indians, forever . . ..'' Our ancestors suffered through immeasurable 
pains to secure a ``forever'' home for the Winnebago people. Through 
these removals, our culture and way of life was disrupted, many 
Winnebago people died along the way, and we were separated from lands 
to which our culture was closely tied. Knowing this harsh history 
strengthens us as we fight to protect and restore our homelands.
II. IMPACT OF ALLOTMENT ERA

    With the treaty making era coming to an end in 1871, the federal 
government shifted to an era of allotment and assimilation, which 
sought to strip us of both our land and culture. The General Allotment 
Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes Act, sought to break up 
reservations and tribal lands by granting allotments to individual 
Indians and encouraging them to take up agriculture.
    By the time the Dawes Act was enacted, the federal government had 
imposed allotment policies on the Winnebago for over 20 years, 
allotting vast amounts of our lands. A treaty signed on April 15, 1859, 
declared that each head of family would receive no more than eighty 
acres, and each single male over eighteen years of age would receive no 
more than forty acres. Further, the Winnebago Removal Act of 1863 (Act 
of February 21, 1863) allotted Winnebago heads of families eighty acres 
of land for cultivation and improvement.
    Although our 1865 treaty made no mention of allotments on our new 
reservation in Nebraska territory, the 1863 Act clearly intended that 
the Winnebago lands be allotted once the Tribe was settled on the new 
reservation. Under the provisions of this Act, the Interior Department 
issued 420 patents to the Winnebago by 1872. These allotment policies 
were just another way to take our land and were forced upon the 
Winnebago, resulting in the Tribe owning just one-third of its 
reservation lands by 1913.
    While the federal government's allotment era ended 90 years ago, 
the Tribe is still feeling the impact of those detrimental policies. 
Our remaining lands were placed into federal trust status in order to 
stop the rapid loss of land. Trust land, however, has had terrible 
long-term economic consequences for the Winnebago people. Over the last 
seven generations, much of our land has become highly fractionated, 
weakening our ability to exercise our sovereignty, self-determination, 
and limiting our ability to use our land for housing, development, 
agriculture, and overall economic gain.
III. LAND BUY-BACK PROGRAM FOR TRIBAL NATIONS

    The Tribe is very appreciative of the efforts of Elouise Cobell, 
along Winnebago tribal leader Louis LaRose and many others, that led to 
the Cobell Settlement, which established a $1.9 billion Trust Land 
Consolidation Fund (``Consolidation Fund''). Signed into law in 
December 2010, the Cobell Settlement aimed, in part, to solve the 
fractionation problem that had been plaguing Indian Country for 
decades. In 2012, the Secretary of the Interior launched the Land Buy-
Back Program for Tribal Nations (``Program'') to implement the land 
consolidation component of the Cobell Settlement.
    In May 2016, the Tribe signed an agreement with the Department of 
the Interior to guide implementation of the Program and outline a 
coordinated strategy to facilitate education about the Program to 
landowners. At that time, former Winnebago Tribal Chairwoman Darla 
LaPointe stated that the Tribe ``made a strategic decision to be 
involved with the Buy-Back Program. This opportunity will provide the 
tribe with communal use and land development that fits our priorities 
as a whole. The Tribe will benefit with additional lands, the 
landowners will benefit monetarily and our local agency's issue with 
fractionalization will be drastically reduced. We see this decision as 
mutually beneficial to all parties.''

    In February 2018, the Department of the Interior provided the Tribe 
with a Purchase Summary Report (``Report'') that outlined how the Tribe 
was benefiting from the Program. Overall, the Program purchased nearly 
12,000 fractional interests and more than 4,200 equivalent acres in 327 
tracts on the lands of the Winnebago Tribe were consolidated under 
tribal ownership. Other key findings included:

     Offers were mailed to 3,500 landowners with fractional 
            interests in lands of the Winnebago Tribe;

     Nearly $11.8 million was paid to landowners who chose to 
            participate in the Program;

     A total of 1,159 landowners (33 percent of those who 
            received offers) sold 11,999 fractional interests;

     The Program purchased $4,791,782 of Surface resource 
            tracts, $12,222 of Mineral tracts, and $6,905,012 of both 
            resource tracts;

     73 tracts were in 100 percent tribal ownership, 291 tracts 
            in tribal management potential, and 339 tracts with more 
            than 50 percent tribal ownership;

     643 tracts were still considered fractionated tracts under 
            the terms of the Cobell Settlement containing 48,090 
            purchasable fractional interests;

     3,585 individuals own fractional interests at the 
            Winnebago Tribe;

          +  Those landowners owned the equivalent of 13,684 
        purchasable acres: 3,545 Surface acres, 4,780 Mineral acres, 
        and 5,333 Both acres.

    In September 2021, the Department of the Interior announced that 
nearly 3,000 landowners with fractional interests at the Winnebago 
Reservation had been sent more than $22 million in purchase offers from 
the Program. Those landowners accepted $5.3 million in offers for 1,558 
equivalent acres. Through both rounds of offers, approximately $17 
million in offers were accepted for over 5,700 equivalent acres.
    The Tribe as well as individual tribal members have benefited 
significantly from the Program. By accepting Program offers, tribal 
citizens have used those proceeds for various purposes, including 
paying off debt, purchasing vehicles to have transportation for 
employment, and purchasing homes. Others were able to purchase 
necessities for their families and create savings or investments for 
long term use. Having a buyer for these fractioned land interests 
provided individuals with an opportunity to turn an asset with limited 
practical or economic value with a limited pool of potential buyers 
into actual capital under tribal members' direct control that could be 
used to improve their lives.
    Benefits to the Tribe include an increase in useable parcels of 
land that are now under total or majority Tribal ownership and 
increased agricultural lease income the Tribe. The Winnebago Tribe can 
now exercise more direct control over who farms the land, what they 
farm, and how they farm it because the Tribe now has majority control 
over more land on the reservation. Previously, if the Tribe did not 
control the land, it had to follow a very regimented federal government 
mandated leasing and planting schedule. These policies did not allow 
the Tribe to maximize its benefit because it had five-year leases that 
did not take into account market fluctuations and forced farmers to 
plant economically poor crops, such as oats instead or corn or 
soybeans. The Tribe can now direct which crops can be grown to maximize 
economic and environmental impact.
    The increased control of our land has also helped boost the Tribe's 
economic growth and community development efforts. For example, the 
Winnebago Tribe's wholly owned farming company, Ho-Chunk Farms, leases 
agricultural land from the Tribe for both commercial and organic 
farming. Ten years ago, Ho-Chunk farms did not exist and did not farm 
any tribal land. In 2024, Ho-Chunk Farms will farm over 7,000 acres of 
tribal land, including 1,000 acres of organic crops. Ho-Chunk Farms 
also provides much needed jobs, training, and income for the Tribe. The 
Land Buy Program has been critical to the Tribe's farming efforts 
because it now has more useable agricultural land that can be available 
for lease by Ho-Chunk Farms. However, it is also critical to note that 
Ho-Chunk Farms now farms all the Tribe's agricultural land and its 
ability to grow will be limited to some extent by how much more land 
the Tribe owns and can consolidate in the future.
IV. NEXT STEPS

    Now that the funding authority for the Program has ended, the 
Winnebago Tribe is committed to finding a way to keep building on the 
successes of the Program. According to the Department of the Interior's 
report titled Ten Years of Restoring Land and Building Trust 2012-2022, 
``fractionation is predicted to exceed pre-Program levels in just 15 
years without sustained efforts. Further, the Department of the 
Interior has indicated that it would likely take billions of dollars to 
resolve the fractionation problem.
    The Winnebago Tribe, with limited tribal resources, is continuing 
to prioritize land acquisition and land consolidation. Additional steps 
that have been identified include personal finance and estate planning 
education for tribal members, increased funding and resources for land 
acquisition, consolidation and management, and development of 
comprehensive land use plans.
    The Program has greatly boosted the Winnebago Tribe's farming 
operation by allowing the Tribe to have more direct control over the 
land. The success of Ho-Chunk Farms allows the Winnebago Tribe to move 
up the economic value chain beyond just leasing the land. The farming 
profits can be used to acquire even more land--creating a continuing 
cycle of job creation and economic activity. This provides the Tribe 
with additional resources to acquire even more fractionated and 
previously lost land.
    Increasing federal funding to help address the fractionation 
problem would greatly advance the Winnebago Tribe's efforts to continue 
to consolidate our land base, increase economic self-sufficiency, and 
strengthen our community.
    The Tribe looks forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee 
and the Department of the Interior in an effort to solve Indian 
Country's fractionation problem.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Victoria Kitcheyan, 
                      Chairwoman, Winnebago Tribe

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In your opinion, how good of a job did the Land Buy-
Back Program do in targeting lands that had a high economic value to 
consolidate?

    Answer. The Winnebago Tribe (``Tribe'') participated in two rounds 
of the Land Buy-Back Program (``Program''). Through both rounds of 
offers, approximately $17 million in offers were accepted for over 
5,700 equivalent acres. While the Tribe appreciates the benefits it 
received from this program, more effective communication with the Land 
Buy-Back Program officials could have led to greater results.
    During the first round of the Program, the Tribe was able to review 
and prioritize highly fractionated lands with the Program officer. It 
was a hands-on experience where the Tribe had the opportunity to weigh 
in on key decisions. However, the Tribe's experience during the second 
round was quite different as most of the decisions came from Program 
staff without the Tribes input. Further, the Tribe had to constantly 
reach out to Program staff for updates.
    Overall, the Tribe found the Program to be highly effective, but 
more effective communication with the Program staff could have led to 
better results.

    Question 2. How has your tribe approached long-term land use 
planning?

    Answer. The Tribe prioritizes land acquisition and land 
consolidation because doing so will strengthen our community and 
increase economic self-sufficiency. Our long-term land use planning 
includes personal finance and estate planning education for tribal 
members, advocating for funding and resources for land acquisition, and 
developing comprehensive land use plans.
    The Tribe is currently working with an external consultant to 
develop a land use plan for the Winnebago Reservation. The plan will 
include plans for business, residential, farming, hunting, recreation, 
and preservation.

    2a) How has fractionation and land consolidation impacted the 
effectiveness of long-term use planning?

    Answer. Fractionation has had and continues to have an impact on 
our long-term planning. Many Winnebago families who hold fractionated 
lands choose not to sell because of their ties to those lands that were 
passed on from ancestors. The Tribe certainly understands those strong 
connections to the lands and is working with families to ensure that 
the lands will always be within the Tribe and for our people.
    Without a consolidated land base, the Tribe has an extremely 
difficult time developing the community, housing, and expanding 
infrastructure. The processes and approvals for use of trust land 
cumbersome and time consuming, especially when parcels are 
fractionated. This adds costs to development and has the potential to 
delay a project by months or even years.

    Question 3. The Department created GIS maps and a database for use 
in the Land Buy-Back Program and has stated that tribes have access to 
that data to see the lands and help make land planning decisions.

    3a) Does the Winnebago Tribe use this data specifically. And if 
yes, how accessible is this data? And If no, please explain why not.

    Answer. The Tribe does not have access to the Department's GIS maps 
and database used in the Land Buy-Back Program.

    Question 4. The Land Buy Back Report acknowledges that land 
fractionation will exceed pre-program levels in 14 years without 
further action.
    4a) Can you further expand from your testimony on any legislative 
or policy solutions that Congress should consider to help further 
consolidate fractional interests?

    Answer.

  1.  Programs for tribal member estate planning resources and 
            education to help tribal members make informed decisions.

  2.  Additional funding for tribal land acquisition so tribes can 
            continue to purchase fractionated interests and other 
            parcels within the reservation.

  3.  Incentives for land sales to tribes within reservations.

    Question 5. Your testimony mentioned the need for personal finance 
and estate planning education for tribal members. What opportunities 
has the tribe found to provide this education for tribal members, or 
what kind of programs would you partner with for this purpose?

    Answer. To date, there have been limited resources for this since 
the BIA stopped providing will drafting services for tribal members 
with trust lands. Currently, the Nebraska Legal Aid provides will 
drafting services for elders. We are also aware of organizations such 
as the Indian Land Tenure Foundation that have programs to help with 
tribal elder education and will drafting. If grants were available, the 
Tribe could apply or partner with another organization to provide this 
service.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. How would you describe the economic impacts that 
fractionation may have on the Winnebago Tribe?

    Answer. Fractionated land makes land use planning extremely 
difficult, cumbersome, and often impractical. It limits the ability of 
the Tribe to effectively develop infrastructure, housing, and other 
projects within the reservation. This has major implications for 
economic development, entrepreneurism, and growth of the community. 
Every single project the Tribe is currently working on, such as 
construction of a new grocery store, emergency services building and 
childcare center, have had delays and challenges due to not having 
consolidated and useable parcels of land for development. The delays 
result in increased construction costs and excessive staff and 
consultant time spent on analyzing options, often with a result that is 
less than ideal and often a workaround due to various fractionalized 
parcels of land scattered throughout the community and reservation.

    Question 2. If no action is taken to reduce fractionated interests, 
how do you expect the situation to look 10 years from now?

    Answer. As tribal members pass away without wills, their trust land 
interests will continue to be divided among all heirs. The more heirs 
there are on a parcel of land, the more difficult it is for that family 
to make use of the land. This results in many parcels of land sitting 
idle or being leased to others for limited economic value to each 
family member. Idle land adds no value to the Tribe as a whole and 
hurts the Tribe's ability to effectively develop within the 
reservation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And, again, I am also proud of the 
bill that we were able to pass out of this Subcommittee and the 
Committee addressing the Winnebago lands along the Missouri 
River. So, we appreciate you coming and testifying on that 
particular issue as well.
    And, finally, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Cris Stainbrook 
for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF CRIS STAINBROOK, PRESIDENT, INDIAN LAND TENURE 
              FOUNDATION, LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stainbrook. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning. 
My name is Cris Stainbrook. I am President of the Indian Land 
Tenure Foundation. I thank the Committee and the Chair for this 
opportunity to provide some input on what has been a long and 
arduous trip for the foundation that we began in 2002, and by 
2003 we had been drawn into this issue of fractionated land 
title and what it could do to Indian Country to help resolve 
that.
    I won't take long today, and I don't have long today. 
Typically, this is a 1- or 2-hour conversation in most 
communities to understand where it came from and where we are 
going if we don't resolve the issues of fractionated land 
title.
    And I will admit I was probably an impetus for getting the 
mindset that $2 billion would resolve the issue when I did 
testimony before the Senate Committee in 2003. That has long 
since passed, and land has appreciated in value substantially. 
And I think that is why you see that it may not have met 
everyone's expectations.
    Having said that, I do think it was probably the most 
efficient program that I have ever seen run by the Federal 
Government. There are some real upsides to the program, and as 
has been pointed out, it is a voluntary program, which is, 
first and foremost, in the foundation's view, a positive. Most 
of the actions that have been taken to resolve fractionation 
have not been voluntary. They have been involuntary takings, 
and probably the best example of that was the Indian Land 
Consolidation Act and the escheat revisions on the 2 percent 
interest at the time of probate.
    There are efficiencies, everything from the appraisal 
process to the titling process to mapping of Indian Country. 
For many tribes, this was the first time they actually had 
received maps that could tell them where their allotments were 
and what the amount of fractionation was on each. I think, if 
nothing else, continuing all of those efficiencies going 
forward will help not just the future program but all of the 
other programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    And the other thing it said was the sheer volume could be 
handled, and that is not insignificant when we are talking 
about fractionated title.
    A few pieces that I would like to say there may have been 
some drawbacks on. We face the resolution of fractionated 
title, but people keep saying to us, ``Well, we are going to 
wait for the next Cobell.'' And that isn't happening, and we 
have to tell them it isn't happening.
    The other drawback is it is expensive. This is a process 
that essentially buys the land, and that makes it expensive.
    The other thing I would say about it is this is really at 
the end of the pipeline. There are ways to get ahead of it and 
get on the front end of the fractionation issue, including 
things that we have been working on for years, which is we 
provide will-writing and estate planning services for Indian 
people. Through that we can do consolidation, and we have 
proven we can do consolidation by stopping it on thousands, 
literally about 8,000 different titles that are out there.
    The other thing, we were the pilot project for the American 
Indian Probate Reform Act and doing estate planning. About 85 
percent of those wills involved consolidation of undivided 
interests. That is where we have been spending a fair bit of 
time, and we have been doing that through resources that we can 
garner from foundations and other sources like OST and also 
USDA.
    I see my time is going away. We also do gift deeds, helping 
people write gift deeds. The thing that we would really like 
Congress to consider is making transfer on death deeds 
available to Indian landowners. It is much more efficient and 
replaces even that.
    We have done an entire package of the programs we offer and 
tried to work out arrangements with the Department of the 
Interior for that program, instituting that entire program, and 
we have provided the Committee with some of the numbers and the 
savings that are available through a consolidated program, 
which is substantial.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stainbrook follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Cris Stainbrook, President of Indian Land
                           Tenure Foundation

    My thank you to Chair Hagerman and the members of this Subcommittee 
for the privilege and honor of inviting me to testify today. The topic 
today has been one of the Indian Land Tenure Foundation's focus for the 
past twenty-two years.
Introduction

    The Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) was created in 2002 
through a community planning process that involved input from more than 
1,200 Native people from throughout Indian Country. From the process 
emerged a consensus on the matters to be addressed that included the 
recovery to Indian ownership of the 90 million acres of reservation 
lands lost through the allotment processes, increased management and 
control of allotted land and the protection of off-reservation cultural 
and religious sites. At inception, the Foundation adopted the mission/
goal statement of, Land within the original boundaries of every 
reservation and other areas of high significance where tribes retain 
aboriginal interest are in Indian ownership and management.
    ILTF has had a number of successes over the 21 years of operation, 
not the least of which has been assisting the Native Nations in the 
recovery of approximately 100,000 acres to their ownership. This has 
been accomplished through a combination of legal assistance, grants and 
loans from ILTF's subsidiary CDFI, Indian Land Capital Company.
    Early in ILTF's work it became apparent that because of the history 
of federal probate of the estates of individual allotment holders, land 
was being lost to Indian ownership and millions of acres of the 
allotments were going underutilized by Indian people. The base cause 
being that the allotted land remained intact in trust status by the 
federal government but the title to the beneficial use was divided 
among the heirs of the decedent in undivided interests as prescribed by 
probate codes. The one way to avoid this prescribed division was for 
the interest holder to have a will directing the division of their 
assets. A quick survey conducted by the Foundation in 2003 showed that 
less than 7 percent of Indian people had written, valid wills. 
Therefore, the vast majority of trust allotment estates went through 
probate intestate and the number of undivided interests in trust 
allotments was growing exponentially and also included non-Indian 
interests due to marriage and non-Indian children heirs.
    There have been a number of attempts by Congress and the Department 
of Interior to stem the growth of the number of undivided interests in 
trust allotments, the first being as far back as the 1934 Indian 
Reorganization Act that ended the allotment of reservation lands. The 
next real effort was the 1983 Indian Land Consolidation Act with a 
center point of escheating the undivided interests of less than 2 
percent to the tribe at the time of probate. This provision was found 
to be an illegal taking and the courts ordered return of taken interest 
to the heirs. This effort did lead to the establishment of the Land 
Consolidation Pilot Project aimed at purchasing the interests of 2 
percent or less on a limited number of reservations.
    It was in this back drop that the ILTF Board concluded that in 
order for individual undivided interest holders to have control, 
management and use of their allotments, further title fractionation 
needed to be slowed and consolidation of interests needed to occur 
before probate through will writing and other mechanisms. The 
Foundation committed $3 million of its own resources in 2003 to provide 
free estate planning services including the writing of wills to Indian 
land interest holders to explore whether interest consolidation and/or 
prevention of new interests could be accomplished.
    To be very clear, this work was undertaken to empower Indian people 
control their land interest assets, particularly as those assets were 
passed to their next generation.
American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 and Estate Planning

    In 2003, Senate Bill 550 was introduced to address changes to the 
federal probate code affecting the Indian held trust land interests. 
The initial bill contained a number of provisions that, while 
addressing the needs and issues of DOI, did little to consider the 
interests and issues of Indian land interest holders and their 
families. The Senate Committee heard the comments from a number of us 
who testified at the hearing and asked that we all join a committee to 
address the concerns and re-write the bill. The committee consisted of 
a number of non-profit Indian groups, including ILTF, tribal leaders 
and BIA field staff. A re-drafted bill was submitted with more 
provisions addressing the concerns of Indian land interest holders. DOI 
reinstated a number of provisions and the American Indian Probate 
Reform Act of 2004 passed as an amendment to the Indian Consolidation 
Act.
    Notable provisions in the Act were that a tribe could submit their 
own probate code for approval by the Secretary of Interior with a time 
limit for approval, there would be a pilot project of estate planning, 
and funding available to work with trust land interest co-owners to 
develop alternative management structures. The first provision was 
negated almost immediately by an Undersecretary of Interior sending a 
memorandum to the tribes saying that the Secretary would not review any 
tribal probate code until the Department had developed a model probate 
code. The co-owner alternative management model was not funded until 
2015.
    The Department of Interior as result initiated the Estate Planning 
Services Pilot Project with the dual objective of providing community 
outreach and legal training on the Act and evaluate the need for estate 
planning services in Indian Country. The Indian Land Tenure Foundation 
submitted a proposal to Interior to conduct the Pilot Project and was 
awarded the contract to start in September, 2005.
    Two regional organizations--the Northwest Justice Project and the 
Dakota Plains Legal Services--were selected to provide the direct 
services to approximately 15 Reservations. The result was impressive 
given a new service and delivery approach was created with an ever-
growing interest from allotment owners. Starting new program services 
on Indian reservations most often take time to build trust and 
awareness and the early recipients of those services provided some of 
the most effective marketing for the program. The final outcome of just 
under 1,350 wills and 3,500 other estate documents were written in the 
eight month period. An additional 1,640 requests for services were 
pending when the contract ended. Eighty-four percent of the wills 
written resulted in consolidation or avoidance of the creation of new 
undivided interests. Further, gift deeds were used by many clients to 
pass their assets to heirs and avoid probate and the extended amount of 
time needed to get through the process. However, when a continuation of 
funding was sought, ILTF was informed that the requirements of AIPRA 
had been fulfilled.
    Using numbers from the BIA at the close of the project, project 
costs of $486,000 saved approximately $3.75 million in future DOI 
administrative costs. More importantly, the project allowed clients to 
direct the passing of their assets and have a much needed service 
provided by the trustee.
    ILTF has continued to seek funding for estate planning services for 
Indian land interest holders. Over the past 18 years, ILTF has patched 
together approximately $5.5 million for estate planning from sources 
like the Office of Special Trustee, USDA and private foundations. ILTF 
is approaching 8,000 wills written and executed as well as nearly 
11,000 gift deed transactions. But for the breaks in available funding 
that causes the loss of momentum with our contracted legal service 
providers, these numbers would be much higher.
    Four years ago, ILTF went to a performance contract model with its 
legal services providers to test the model on a limited basis. The 
providers are paid on a scale based on the number and type of documents 
completed for clients. The model has worked particularly well with 
private legal firms.
    As a final comment regarding estate planning, the DOI should 
consider using electronic wills and storage of original wills in the 
Lenexa, Kansas facility. Many of the original wills stored by clients 
cannot be located at the time of probate and results in the estate 
being processed as intestate. The process for electronic wills could be 
the same as that used by the federal court system.
Gift Deeds

    Gift deeds are a valuable tool for consolidating interests 
particularly if the interest holder has multiple interests on multiple 
reservations and heirs that are also on those reservations. Many, many 
trust land interest owners fit that description. The gift deed can be 
used to give land interests to the heirs who would receive the 
interests through probate or to any other person or entity, including 
the tribe. The gift deed process takes considerable time to go through 
and is currently a permanent transfer of the land interest.
    While ILTF's legal services contractors have processed many of 
these, the number of requests has been increasing dramatically the last 
four years. The contractors report that clients would be more inclined 
to make gift deeds if the process were simplified and the gift 
recipient could be changed if circumstances changed. One significant 
change that could be made is the requirement for an appraisal on the 
property being gifted. Getting an appraisal or valuation for Indian 
land processes can be delayed by many months and even years. As the 
transaction is a gift without payment, ascertaining its monetary value 
seems superfluous.
    The advantage of gift deeds over wills accrues primarily to the 
heirs or other gifted party. They will be the owners of the interest 
upon completion of the deed. Gift deeding all of an interest holders 
land interests and other trust assets will avoid the lengthy probate 
process.
Transfer on Death Deeds

    Transfer on Death Deeds (TDD) are now allowed and used in 30 states 
but not allowed on trust assets of Indian people, land interests and 
Individual Indian Monies Accounts (IIM). TDDs are used to streamline 
the process of transferring assets to heirs or others without having to 
go through the probate process. Most states allow the asset holder to 
identify a beneficiary for one or more of their assets to transfer 
immediately upon their death. The asset holder may also identify 
multiple beneficiaries to receive an asset, generally on separate 
forms. Many Indian people make use of TDDs in passing on their non-
trust assets in states where TDDs are allowed.
    This is a tool of estate planning that would seem to be a good fit 
for reducing administrative costs related to the probate process, 
particularly small IIM accounts and small undivided land interests. In 
the recent past BIA staff reported that there were approximately 50,000 
IIM accounts with less than $15 in the account and accruing less than 
$1 per year. Prior to his retirement, Office of Hearings and Appeals 
Chief Judge, Earl Waites, estimated that OHA put these small accounts 
through an expedited probate process requiring approximately $1,000 of 
OHA staff time.
    While only a modest amount of consolidation may occur due to the 
use of TDD, the benefits to heirs in terms of timing of receiving the 
assets would be substantial.
Land Purchase for Consolidation

    The most recent example of buying out land interests for the 
purpose of reducing the number of undivided interests is the Land Buy-
Back for Tribal Nations (LBBP). Arising in the settlement of the Cobell 
lawsuit, in my opinion this program was perhaps the most efficient and 
effective in reaching its goals of any federal government run program 
in my lifetime. While there were many outcomes intended and unintended 
that may prove to be problematic, it fulfilled its goals in 
consolidating interests from willing Indian land interest owners. Past 
programs concerning Indian land often involved involuntary 
participation.
    In marked contrast to the processes of Estate Planning, Gift Deeds 
and Transfers on Death Deeds as outlined above, the outright purchase 
and transfer of the interest to the tribes ends the possibility of 
further fractionation of the undivided interest. The upside is, it 
begins to return the land to the communal ownership much as before the 
General Allotment Act of 1887. The downside is, those tribes that have 
not before had leasing or assignment programs for tribal member land 
usage will be playing catch up. Land management staff will need to 
expand rapidly.
    The processes under the LBBP for appraisal and titling of the 
transactions set new standards for DOI and BIA. These efficiencies 
should not be lost. This Program demonstrated that new thinking and 
technology can be brought to bear within the DOI to more effectively 
serve their beneficiaries. And, while large volumes of undivided 
interests were consolidated into tribal interests, the ending of the 
program will allow fractionation of land titles to resume despite many 
willing sellers remaining available throughout Indian Country. While 
the $30 million proposed in the FY2025 budget may keep the desired 
processes in place, it will not keep up with the rate of fractionating 
titles. ILTF's calculations would suggest that an annual allocation of 
$60 million to $100 million is necessary for an extended time to 
breakeven with new interests to be purchased. This does not take into 
account the accelerating value of land throughout the country.
    In short, the Land Purchase program is the most efficient program 
for reducing fractionated titles, but it is also the most expensive way 
to reduce fractionation as the land is being re-purchased. The cost of 
other approaches is likely that of providing services and 
administrative processing.
    Even with the suggested amounts for a purchase program, it will not 
solve the fractionated title issue. It is very clear that many Indian 
people will not sell their land interests for any amount. Whether it is 
because ``It is my Grandma's land and she said never to sell because it 
is all we have.'' Or, there is an expectation that minerals may be 
discovered on the allotment. Or, it is their touch point to their tribe 
and reservation. That is where the other approaches come into play.
Performance Contract

    In 2003 ILTF began trying to address the issue of fractionated 
title of trust allotments and how the land could work for Indian people 
rather than be used or leased out to non-Indians at less than market 
rate. The first foray into estate planning showed that the legal 
expenses would soon outstrip available resources and at the same time 
there would be administrative savings at several levels for DOI. We 
approached DOI in 2004 with a proposal to do a performance contract 
based on the number of fractional interests consolidated or avoided and 
the savings in administrative costs to DOI. ILTF was told it shouldn't 
be a performance contract but rather a grant project but funds weren't 
available. ILTF took the proposal back again in 2005 and again in 2018. 
The latter model was based on a Social Bond model of initial injection 
of private capital through bonds. ILTF was told it should be presented 
as a performance contract not a Social Impact Bond by the very same 
person we met with in 2004 who said it shouldn't performance contract!
    ILTF has modelled the program for legal services to help Indian 
people with Estate Planning, Gift Deeds, Transfer on Death Deeds, and 
purchase of interests. The attachment is the summary of costs for the 
first 10 years of program services ($696,781,426) and the savings of 
DOI administrative costs (in a range of $7.5 billion to $15.2 billion) 
over 40 years. The costs include an annual allocation of approximately 
$60 million in purchases of undivided interests.
    As you will note, the return on the cost of the purchase of land 
interest component is the lowest. As noted above, that is due to the 
actual purchase of land interests. The Transfer on Death Deeds is the 
highest return on dollars expended largely due to the absence of 
probate costs.
    The provision of legal services covering any of the above 
possibilities and informing clients of their options at one time 
increases the efficiency of the service. It also allows for the client 
to decide which approach best fits their personal situation.
Conclusion

    ILTF would recommend that Congress and DOI consider approaching the 
issue from multiple approaches to have any hope of correcting what your 
predecessors created more than 100 years ago. Now would be the time to 
take action and benefit from the reduction of undivided interest from 
the Land Buy-Back Program as it will only grow from here. The 
Foundation will continue to work on this issue as well but as would be 
expected, the ILTF focus will be on serving the interests of the Native 
Nations and individual Indian land interest owners.
    If ILTF can provide any further information or input, please don't 
hesitate to contact me.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments to the 
Subcommittee.

                                 *****

                               ATTACHMENT

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                                 __
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Cris Stainbrook, President, 
                     Indian Land Tenure Foundation

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned the Indian Land Tenure 
Foundation's successes in implementing estate planning services for 
tribal members over the past 22 years.

    1a) Can you further elaborate on why in 2003 less than 7 percent of 
tribal members had written valid wills?

    Answer. While there has been little specific research on why, the 
most common assumptions center on the lack of a cultural history of 
estate planning and will writing. Prior to the passage of the General 
Allotment Act (GAA) in 1887, assets of an Indian person largely passed 
to the heirs in accordance with the specific tribal custom. Specific 
land areas in individual ownership was extremely rare and were more 
often assignments by the tribes for use by family groups. The need for 
passing land assets and other assets did not arise legally until the 
allotments were issued through the GAA. Under the GAA, the federal 
government declared Indian landowners as incompetent to handle their 
land affairs. Having a will was a completely unknown to Indian people 
and, as an ``incompetent,'' any will they may have had would have been 
deemed unlawful.
    The early probates of Indian assets, including land allotments, 
were subject to the state codes where the land was located. Few Indian 
people understood the codes or had legal assistance to develop a will. 
In reaction to the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934, the federal government 
developed a probate code for the division of land interests among heirs 
followed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) writing wills for Indian 
trust assets, including land interest holders. The vast majority of BIA 
wills were written by non-legally trained individuals and simply 
followed the distribution structure in Department of Interior 
regulations. There was little reason to have a will unless the Indian 
person had some very large estate and could afford independent legal 
advice.
    The passage of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) of 1983 was 
the first significant effort to begin trying to stem the amount of 
fractionation of land title in the allotments. Several provisions in 
the ILCA drew the attention of Indian land interest holders for their 
negative effects, including the administrative taking of small 
interests. This resulted in the first real uptick of Indian wills being 
created by those who could afford legal assistance. Amendments to ILCA 
in 2000, led to another bump but also led to many allotments being 
taken out of trust status rather than passing through the federal 
probate code.

    1b) Which of these reasons still hold true today that Congress 
should take into consideration when legislating in this area?

    Answer. Few of the issues discussed above are current impediments 
to estate planning for allotment interest holders. The largest one that 
still exists, particularly for the elderly, is the financial cost of 
legal services. In 2004, the BIA discontinued writing and storing wills 
for trust assets. The Indian trust land interest holders are therefore 
required to find legal services elsewhere. Complicating this further is 
the low number of attorneys trained in the will preparation under the 
American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA) provisions.

    Question 2. Your testimony also mentioned the increase of interest 
from allotment owners and writing of wills after the American Indian 
Probate Reform Act was passed.

    2a) Has interest continued to increase among allotment owners?

    Answer. Yes, the interest has continued because AIPRA contains 
provisions that are seen as onerous to many land interest owners. The 
only way for the land interest owners to avoid having the provisions, 
including forced sale at probate, implemented is to have a will 
designating heirs and the distribution of assets. Indian people know 
and understand the issues of further fractionation of land title. They 
are willing to have wills that stop, or at least reduce, the creation 
of new undivided interests. They also are willing to consider gift 
deeds (Transfer on Death Deeds if made available) to further prevent 
more fractionation.
    The bottom line is, Indian people want to control their land assets 
and the outcome when they pass on.

    2b) Are there other considerations or factors that the Foundation 
has found that work to engage tribal members and Indian landowners in 
the estate planning process?

    Answer. Sadly, yes. The request for legal services jumped 
dramatically during the COVID crisis. The legal service providers 
attempted to meet the demand through different means, including 
providing online services, and at one site providing a drive-through 
service with staff in full protective gear. Unfortunately, several 
clients were unable to execute their wills before contracting the virus 
and passing on.
    Educating people on their options and what will occur if they 
choose the No Action option generally is sufficient to move people. 
However, it is a continual process. What might not be on their mind 1 
day, will become urgent for them on a different day.
    Word of mouth and continuity of services are also very important. 
After ILTF's providers serve a few initial clients in a community, word 
spreads but the providers need to be there regularly.

    Question 3. Please expand on the difficulties that the Indian Land 
Tenure Foundation faced while working with the Department to put in 
place a program that would address estate planning for individual 
Indians.

    3a) How can this be avoided in the future?

    Answer. It seems the DOI and BIA keep looking for the silver bullet 
that will fix the issue of increasing fractionation of land title. The 
ILCA in 1983 included the escheat provision--small interests less than 
two percent and earning minimal revenue would be taken at probate by 
DOI and given over to the tribe. These were found to be 
unconstitutional takings.
    The next attempt was the Land Buy-Back Pilot Project of the 1990s. 
It had some promise but also major flaws. It focused on purchasing very 
small (less than two percent) interests and returning the interest to 
the tribes, but it also put a lien on each purchase and needed to 
account for revenues against each small interest purchased. This did 
not reduce the BIA management costs significantly. Also, by not 
purchasing the larger interests from elderly willing sellers, the BIA 
missed the opportunity to do one transaction as opposed to many 
multiple transactions once an estate went through probate. The 
administration costs were prohibitive.
    Next was AIPRA. This was a legislative attempt to change the 
probate outcomes for intestate estates and reduce fractionation by 
limitations on who could inherit interests. This was done with the 
``single heir rule'' but also included provisions for ``forced sale'' 
at probate. These provisions are modestly successful, but will likely 
take 30 to 40 years to come close to ending fractionation, and will be 
effective only if Indian land interest holders do not write wills.
    AIPRA also contained provisions for an estate planning/will writing 
pilot project. The Foundation was selected to do the pilot project. 
While it was successful serving clients and reducing fractionation in 
line with clients' wishes, we were told further program funding would 
not be available as, ``The Department has fulfilled its 
responsibilities under the AIPRA legislation.''
    The most recent attempt came out of the Cobell Settlement, the Land 
Buy-Back Program (LBBP) for Native Nations. To their credit, DOI took 
lessons from the prior land buy-back pilot project, added much needed 
technology applications, and applied the program across a wide 
geography of Indian Country at a scale sufficient to have an impact. 
This was clearly their best effort to date. However, not every Indian 
land interest holder was willing to sell their interests. Whether it 
was their tie to their reservation, or it was Grandma's land, or it is 
their only source of regular income, some percentage of Indian people 
have no intention of selling at any price.
    Our difficulty in working with DOI and BIA seemed to be that we 
were proposing a multi-pronged approach using all the tools in the 
toolbox to stem the tide of creating more undivided interests. The 
Foundation also came at the issue initially from the perspective of 
doing something to help Indian people control their assets, not to save 
the federal government administrative costs. Admittedly, we were naive 
in thinking the trustee would have the beneficiaries' interest as a 
priority.

    3b) Do you think the administrative costs that could be saved have 
increased or decreased since the Foundation suggested their program?

    Answer. Clearly, it has increased from our first attempt in 2003 to 
undertake the project. At that time, the administrative cost of 
managing one undivided interest in Indian land was an average of $125 
per year. This number was included by the Secretary's Office in 
testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In our most recent 
modeling (2017), the calculation of $168 per undivided interest per 
year was provided by the Secretary's Office. While we have not run the 
numbers since the Land Buy-Back Program was completed in November, 
2023, it is likely that the total administrative costs are 
approximately the same but began rising literally the day the Buy-Back 
Program ended.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Again, I want to thank all of you for your 
testimony, your insight, and the expertise that you bring to 
this discussion.
    I am now going to recognize the Members for 5 minutes of 
questioning, and I am going to start with myself, and there are 
just a couple of comments that I would like to make.
    In listening to you, one of the things that I really 
appreciate that you have brought today is you have brought 
solutions. We don't always see that. We don't always see where 
our witnesses come in and have a list of things that they think 
need to be done to address the issue that is creating the 
problem at hand. So, I appreciate that.
    Congress sometimes doesn't always act as quickly as you 
would think or that you would want, but at the same time, 
bringing this list to us allows us to better focus on what is 
actually going to be a solution, because a lot of times I think 
government is always trying to fix its last solution, and that 
becomes very inefficient and very wasteful of our resources.
    I especially appreciate the comment that we need to be 
interpreting regulations and statutes in favor of the tribes 
and in favor of resolving the issue rather than creating more 
barriers. That is another thing is, as an attorney who has 
dealt with regulations and administrative agencies for decades, 
I feel that so much of the work that our agencies do is to 
create barriers rather than to create roadmaps.
    And I appreciate the idea of coming up with more ideas or 
coming up with more solutions as to how these things can be 
interpreted to actually address and solve the problem rather 
than creating more problems or more barriers.
    I also want to note that the Land Buy-Back Program spent 
$1.69 billion to reduce land fractionation on reservation 
lands, but the fractionization has still not on a consistent 
basis been on a downward trajectory. So, we need to consider 
the fact of whether just throwing more money or providing more 
money for this is the solution or whether there are other ways 
that we can address this.
    Again, with your expertise, your knowledge of the on-the-
ground situation, I think that you are absolutely in the best 
position to educate us on those other opportunities.
    I am going to start with you, Mr. Weatherwax. In your 
testimony, you note that the Blackfeet Nation has utilized 
innovative technology when it comes to land management. Could 
you elaborate just a bit further on that and also if it would 
be useful to have regional organizations collaborate on land 
management. If you could just tell us a bit about some of the 
innovative things that you have done for land management.
    Mr. Weatherwax. For land management, we have used the GPS 
system, historic maps and photos, to try to give the Tribe the 
most accurate picture of landownership and jurisdictional 
issues. We are tracking land with our own software because we 
do not have access to TAAMS. We have had to reinvent the wheel 
because we don't have access to the concise Federal database.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, then maybe that is one of the areas that 
we could address. And I appreciate Mr. Stainbrook's comments 
about the fact that sometimes with this mapping program it was 
the first time that our tribes even had a map of their lands, 
which is rather stunning to me as I sit here in 2024 to learn 
that. So, I appreciate that information because I think mapping 
and understanding what is there is absolutely critically 
important in terms of knowing where we go from here.
    Mr. LeBeau, I am going to go to you next. I just have a 
quick comment. You indicated that your allotments for your 
ranchers or for your cattle producers is about 1,000 acres per, 
and it takes 28 acres per cow-calf pair, which means that each 
1,000 acres would sustain about 35 head of cattle, which coming 
from a ranch, that doesn't seem like a lot. That seems to me a 
very restrictive way to raise livestock.
    Have you found that there are ways that we can increase 
that to increase the economic development and opportunity for 
our tribal members? And he just interrupted me, but that is OK 
because we like Dusty. That we can increase that allotment or 
increase those numbers, so that we can have additional economic 
development for our tribal members in terms of cattle 
production.
    Mr. LeBeau. Yes. That would be great, if we could increase 
the production. One way is to study the land. Perhaps the grass 
can support more animals, more calf-cow pairs, than originally 
thought. And the other way would be to do the land buy-back 
thoroughly through the reservations once again.
    This program has helped our tribal members a lot, and we 
have benefited from it, whether it was through farming or 
through ranching. We come from a reservation where the vast 
majority of our lands are used for ranching. So, it makes sense 
for this program to continue once again.
    Ms. Hageman. I appreciate that. I am out of time. I wish I 
had more of an opportunity to visit with you, but we will have 
other opportunities.
    And, Representative Johnson, thank you for joining us 
today.
    With that, I am going to call on the Ranking Member for her 
5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I will say 
one of the things we often don't hear in this Committee is that 
a Federal program is working and working well. I think that is 
the most efficient program you have seen, and I think that that 
is a testimony to the fact of how bad things were and how 
important it was to finally address it. And thank heaven for 
Cobell and the courageous leadership that her and their 
attorneys took in taking on the United States about its 
failures of trust responsibility.
    We have heard that maybe money is not important and that we 
don't need to throw more money at this issue. But let me ask 
each of the witnesses, is it necessary for the Federal 
Government to actually allocate more money to assist with the 
Land Buy-Back Program? Is that an essential element?
    And I will just maybe go from left to right. Honorable 
Councilmember Weatherwax, do we need more Federal money to 
assist with the Land Buy-Back Program?
    Mr. Weatherwax. Yes, ma'am. The funding is pivotal. The 
fractionation just spirals unless you can stop it.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And because there isn't enough tribal 
money to actually buy back the land, it was the Federal 
Government who did that. Chairman LeBeau?
    Mr. LeBeau. Yes. This program has definitely been a win for 
our Tribe, and I think for Congress. I think it worked out 
great. And the Tribe doesn't have the funds to fund programs 
like this. We often do land purchases with our own funds, but 
that is on a limited basis.
    We currently have tribal members that come in very often to 
sell their land, and like I said, we are not always able to do 
that with the funds available. So, we think this program worked 
great on our reservation, and we would like it to continue. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. Chairwoman Kitcheyan?
    Ms. Kitcheyan. Yes. More funding is needed, and I would say 
we need to expand the scope of how we reacquire the land. In 
Winnebago, like many other reservations, there were many ways 
that we lost the land. So, now we have these farm families that 
are retiring, and the children or the grandchildren no longer 
want to farm. That is our situation. So, there is this massive 
acreage that the Tribe can't afford to buy, but are also once-
in-a-lifetime opportunities.
    So, beyond just the fractionization and all of the things 
we have covered today, there are many other ways that this land 
came out of the Tribe's hand. We just saw this movie ``Killers 
of the Flower Moon''. We are peeling back the layers of what 
happened to the tribes, and how we reacquire the land is going 
to take an awareness and acknowledgement of those things, and 
also expanding the scope on other lands that are largely held 
by non-Natives within the reservation boundaries.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I think that is another big 
issue of, how do we get other lands that were taken in fact? As 
we know, listening to the need for Black Hills to be restored 
is something that we all should constantly remember on this 
Committee.
    Mr. Stainbrook, the one who is willing to compliment the 
BIA.
    Mr. Stainbrook. Well, the reality of it is this situation 
is going to get much worse unless actions are taken and taken 
over a period of time. And I think what the program ended up 
demonstrating is that, yes, you can do large-scale purchases 
back to the tribes, but the tribes aren't even in the ballpark 
when it comes to being able to do that at the scale it needs to 
be done. Only the Federal Government is at that place.
    We have examples. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe, for instance, 
has been buying undivided interests under the Tribal Land 
Enterprise since the 1940s, have spent probably at least tens 
of millions, if not almost $100 million, on purchases. And they 
are still a long ways from being done, maybe half of the way 
there.
    I think if you don't get on the front end of this deal, and 
stop fractionation at the source, it will cost anywhere from--
in fact, in the proposal we made to the Department, it was $60 
million a year for 10 years for the buy-back program, and about 
$6 million to $7 million a year for providing legal services to 
help people reduce the fractionation through estate planning 
and other means. So, there is a cost efficiency that needs to 
happen.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Stainbrook.
    My time has expired, but I do appreciate the chart that you 
provided us which shows both the savings, the upfront savings 
that we can do, because it is not just money, it is also legal, 
and $15 billion is a significant amount of money to be saved by 
your proposals. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Hageman. The Chair now recognizes Representative 
LaMalfa for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    So, help me understand this a little bit, a private party, 
a tribal member, has land that they wish to sell, they want to 
move on, they want to go somewhere else, whatever it might be. 
Not unlike in the agricultural world where maybe the family 
wishes to sell, move on, or not make any money farming, and the 
kids/grandkids don't want to do it anymore. So, this is kind of 
what we are looking at.
    So, we want in this program to not lose that land as tribe 
or tribal member ownership. That is the bottom line, right? 
Anybody on the panel?
    Ms. Kitcheyan. Yes, sir. And these are large corporations 
that are coming in and buying this land on the reservation.
    Mr. LaMalfa. The same thing in agriculture we face all the 
time as farmers.
    Ms. Kitcheyan. Or these auctions that we are learning about 
and how we participate in these auctions. And just taking 
control of how we buy back our reservation is not only an 
effort we are successfully doing through the Land Buy-Back 
Program, but we are like pulling all our pennies together and 
we are trying to leverage our resources as to how can we get 
this done?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Sure. I get it. Let me reclaim my time here. I 
am just looking at it from a very broad context here, and I 
sympathize. I sympathize with how land and treaties and how 
much has been broken by the Federal Government, outsiders, 
against tribes over the decades, the many decades and such.
    But I guess at what point do we say we don't have to do 
this anymore? At what point does a Federal taxpayer not have to 
come in behind because individuals are making individual 
decisions on their land and saying we need to subsidize tribes 
to buy this land to keep it in tribes?
    Are there provisions in here that would cause that a tribe 
would permanently own the land, that they cannot sell it, or 
should we even have such a provision that says if the Federal 
Government helps purchase this land from the private tribal 
member and convey it to the tribe, is the tribe allowed never 
to sell it then?
    Councilman Weatherwax, would you wish to touch on that, 
please?
    Mr. Weatherwax. Yes, thank you. I believe the misconception 
that we are not taxpayers kind of stuck out there to me. I am 
sorry.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I didn't mean it that way, sir. We are talking 
billions of dollars of programs that 50 states and everybody is 
going to pay on. I am sympathetic to what you are talking 
about, but I am just saying what is this going to look like 
long term? When is there an expiration date, like, yay, we have 
gotten there, we have done it right?
    Mr. Weatherwax. I don't believe there is an expiration date 
on this. I believe when----
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, there needs to be a permanent program that 
every time an individual tribal member wishes to sell the land 
that the Federal Government should purchase it and give it to 
the tribe as a whole?
    Mr. Weatherwax. I think providing tribal land buy-back 
money directly would help us, and it would allow us direct, 
quick, local decision-making, and that would help.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Sir, don't let me be misunderstood on 
this. I am very sympathetic to a lot of this, but these will be 
questions I get asked at home, like, when do these programs 
finally culminate here?
    Because I am very frustrated about the tribal process to 
purchase land, say surplus lands that the Federal Government 
has, and we are working on that with some of our locals at home 
and such, and/or to build housing and they have to go through 
all these, it requires legislation in Washington, DC.
    I am happy to do my job and help do that. We have done 
that. But it shouldn't require you having to come hat in hand 
to this place and ask a Congress Member to run a bill so you 
can purchase a piece of land that might be surplus already to 
the government. There is a lot of frustration with all of this, 
across the board.
    But one of my questions was, should there be a revolving 
fund that Indian Country can then consolidate their needs over 
a longer term without having to worry about the whims of 
Congress here in the Capitol? Would a revolving fund be helpful 
in that?
    Mr. Weatherwax. Yes, sir. I think we need to work together 
to try to solve this. I mean, this is a bigger problem.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Absolutely. Is there something that you 
can look at long term and that this is going to finally work 
out well, because I think many folks would look at the program 
and say, ``All right. We are willing to help for a time period 
here.''
    But if there keeps constantly being this changing of hands 
of land, and then the Federal Government has to come in and 
somehow try to fix that, it is a lot like agricultural land. Ag 
land ends up being put into land trusts where it can be tied up 
forever or for certain payment, and all that, which I have a 
little mixed feeling on that, too, about someone saying you 
have to tie up your land forever as well, too, if something 
changes on your farming operation.
    So, these are just kind of the bigger, broader questions I 
want us to think about a little bit. My time is way over, and I 
better yield back. Thank you all for being here.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. And I understand that 
some of the frustration is the Land Buy-Back Program did not 
have a mechanism to provide revolving funds, which could have 
worked to sustain land consolidation funding. And I think that 
is something that we do need to look at.
    I think that could be something that could be helpful at 
funding future land purchases, so you don't have to come back 
to this body to be able to move more quickly and address a 
specific parcel. It could more readily deal with the concerns 
that you have.
    I want to, again, thank all of you for your testimony 
today, for traveling here, addressing this issue, because I do 
think that this is an incredibly important issue.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, February 2, 2024, and the hearing record will 
be open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, and without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

    [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                            Darryl LaCounte
                   Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
                United States Department of the Interior

    Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Darryl LaCounte, and I am the 
Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) at the U.S. Department 
of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity to discuss 
opportunities and challenges of land consolidation in Indian Country.
Background

    Although the federal policy of allotment ended in 1934, the impacts 
of that policy continue to reverberate across Indian Country. 
Approximately 90 million acres of Tribal lands--an area larger than the 
state of New Mexico--were taken through the allotment process, with 
most of that land sold to non-Indians in forced sales. In addition, 
some allotments designated for individuals were held in trust or 
restricted status. These trust and restricted allotments are often 
inherited by the children, spouses, and other relatives of the original 
and successive landowners, creating undivided common ownership 
interests in the land. As a result, fractionation of those original 
trust and restricted allotments has grown exponentially over 
generations.
    The fractioned ownership interests affect nearly 5.6 million acres 
of allotted land throughout Indian Country, locking up a significant 
area and creating an overly complicated land tenure status where single 
tracts of land could have more than 1,200 individual landowners. When 
tracts have multiple co-owners, it is difficult to obtain the required 
approvals for leases or other uses of such lands. As a result, many 
tracts are unavailable for any purpose. During FY 2022, approximately 
64 percent of the 100,978 fractionated tracts did not generate any 
income for the individual Indian landowners.
    In addition, as a result of fractionated ownership of allotted 
lands and the checkerboard nature of landownership patterns on many 
reservations, Tribes are experiencing major challenges that impact 
Tribal sovereignty and self-determination. For example, fractionated 
ownership may make it difficult to protect or obtain access to sacred 
or cultural sites, and the checkerboard ownership pattern creates 
jurisdictional challenges and ties up land within the reservation 
boundaries, making it difficult to pursue economic development and 
address unique climate-related challenges.
Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations

    In the 1996 class action lawsuit Cobell v. Salazar, five litigants 
sued the United States for the alleged mismanagement of trust funds 
belonging to approximately 300,000 American Indians. The Cobell 
plaintiffs made numerous allegations including that the government did 
not fulfill its trust responsibility through a failure to account for 
the trust funds of the individuals generated by mining, oil and gas 
extraction, timber operating, grazing, or similar activities.
    The Cobell case settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion (Cobell 
Settlement). As part of the Cobell settlement, $1.9 billion was 
allocated to establish the Trust Land Consolidation Fund (Consolidation 
Fund). The Cobell Settlement and the creation of the Consolidation Fund 
resulted in the development of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal 
Nations (LBBP).
    The LBBP was established in 2012 by the Secretary of the Interior 
to implement the land consolidation aspects of the Cobell Settlement, 
which required that the $1.9 billion Consolidation Fund be expended 
within a 10-year period that ended in November 2022. The principal goal 
of the LBBP was to consolidate the maximum number of fractional trust 
or restricted fee land interests through voluntary sales with 
individual landowners. All interests that were purchased were put into 
trust for the Tribe with jurisdiction over the interest. Consolidating 
the fractionated interest into Tribal ownership creates opportunities 
for economic development, conservation, cultural stewardship, or other 
uses deemed beneficial by Tribes. As summarized in the December 2023 
LBBP report, the Tribes are using the newly-restored lands for vital 
matters, such as to make infrastructure improvements, deliver water for 
agricultural operations, secure utility corridors, protect oyster beds, 
and expand school facilities and recreation areas. See U.S. Department 
of the Interior, ``Ten Years of Restoring Land and Building Trust 2012-
2022, Land Buy-Buy Back Program for Tribal Nations,'' pgs. 30-31 
(December 2023).
    During its first year, the LBBP largely focused on planning, 
consultations, research, analysis, reviewing the lessons of the 
previous BIA Indian Land Consolidation Program (ILCP), and active 
engagement with Tribal leaders and individual landowners. The LBBP 
began making land consolidation purchases in December 2013 and by its 
conclusion had made $4.3 billion in offers to 163,763 individuals for 
fractionated interests at 53 locations.
    Throughout the 10-year duration of the LBBP, $1.69 billion was paid 
to landowners. Tribal ownership was created, or increased, in more than 
51,000 tracts of allotted land with 1,916 of those tracts achieving 100 
percent Tribal ownership. These efforts resulted in more than one 
million interests being consolidated, thus restoring approximately 
three million equivalent acres of land to Tribal ownership. On average, 
the cost of these acquisitions was approximately $570 per equivalent 
acre.
    The LBBP intentionally sought to maximize the funding available to 
purchase as many fractionated interests as possible through limiting 
the program's implementation costs. Accordingly, implementation costs 
were kept to less than 8 percent--considerably below the 15 percent of 
what was permitted pursuant to the Cobell Settlement--which allowed the 
LBBP to transfer $135.2 million from the implementation portion of the 
Consolidation Fund to the land purchase portion. Although the LBBP 
significantly reduced and helped slow the growth of fractionation, 
without continued sustained efforts going forward, fractionation is 
predicted to exceed pre-LBBP levels in approximately 14 years. See 
Chart A.
Future Work to Address Fractionation

    In a December 2009 Senate Hearing, former Deputy Secretary David J. 
Hayes testified that while the $1.9 billion established for land 
consolidation as a result of the Cobell Settlement would make a 
significant impact in addressing fractionation, resolution of the 
problem would likely require $6-8 billion. In the 2016 Status Report on 
the LBBP, former Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell reiterated 
concerns that the Consolidation Fund would not be sufficient to 
purchase all fractional interests, and that the value of remaining 
fractionated land would probably be several billion dollars at the 
LBBP's conclusion in 2022.
    The LBBP demonstrated that with adequate resources, establishment 
of efficient processes, and working in close coordination with Tribes, 
continued land consolidation through voluntary sales is, and will 
remain, an effective approach for addressing fractionation. Moreover, 
these efforts continue to receive broad support in Indian Country. To 
build on the achievements of the LBBP and maintain the already existing 
infrastructure, the Department continues a sustained effort to reduce 
fractionation through ILCP as described in the FY 2024 budget request. 
The current ILCP has incorporated lessons learned from the LBBP and the 
previous BIA ILCP to ensure effective program implementation.
    To keep pace with the predicted growth in fractional interests and 
maintain the existing infrastructure, the Administration's FY 2023 
budget request included $80 million for voluntary land acquisitions. 
This funding was critical to take full advantage of consolidation 
opportunities where land appraisals were complete, such as for the Pine 
Ridge Reservation where $78 million in offers were ready to be 
extended, subject to availability of funds. Ultimately, $8 million was 
appropriated to BIA in the FY 2023 budget for land consolidation 
efforts. For FY 2024, the President's budget request for the ILCP is 
$30.5 million.
    In addition to land consolidation through voluntary sales, other 
ideas for addressing reduction of fractionation and its impact should 
continue to be discussed going forward. Several ideas were brought to 
the Department's attention in the last few years. Among them are 
facilitating co-owner purchases and expanding land consolidation 
opportunities beyond the original 53 locations involved in the LBBP. 
The Department will continue to engage individual Indians, Tribes, and 
organizations in conversations and consultations that may lead to 
possible proposals and eventual solutions for fractionation.
Conclusion

    Tribal homelands are at the heart of Tribal sovereignty, self-
determination, and self-governance. By continuing to address the 
lingering effects of previous allotment policies, including the 
resulting land loss, landlessness, and ongoing fractionation, the 
Department will support the cornerstone principles of protecting Tribal 
homelands. A comprehensive approach to addressing fractionation is 
appropriate given the breadth and complexity of the ongoing impact. The 
Department is committed to working with the Subcommittee to develop 
meaningful strategies and tools to address fractionation while 
continuing to seek appropriate resources.

                                Chart A

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Ten Years of Restoring Land 
and Building Trust 2012-2022, Land Buy-Buy Back Program for Tribal 
Nations,'' pg. 1 (December 2023)

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Darryl LaCounte, Director, Bureau 
                           of Indian Affairs

Mr. LaCounte did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Despite spending $1.69 billion dollars to reduce land 
fractionation on reservation lands, the Land Buy Back Program's own 
report showed that further actions would be needed to keep the downward 
trajectory, and without further action in 14 years the rate of 
fractionation will surpass pre-program numbers. How can the Department 
continue to advocate for increased funds for land consolidation when it 
seems clear from DOI's own report that more is needed than just 
additional funds being allocated for voluntary buyback purchases?

    Question 2. Under the Indian Land Consolidation Act, when a 
fractionated tract was sold to Interior, the Department would transfer 
the land title into trust and place a lien on the tract. The lien would 
be paid off with any revenues gained through development of the land--
creating a revolving fund for additional purchases.

    2a) Would the Department consider a similar sustainability 
mechanism in any future land consolidation efforts?

    2b) What further policy changes would the Department suggest to 
make funding sustainable without requiring congressional appropriations 
every year?

    Question 3. It is the Committee's understanding that the GIS maps 
created through the Land Buy Back Program can continue to assist the 
Department and tribes in land consolidation efforts.

    3a) How accessible are the GIS maps created through the Land Buy 
Back Program for tribes looking to consolidate land on their own? Is 
there any data about the parcels that tribes cannot access?

    3b) What, if any, legislative changes are needed to ensure full 
access for tribes and continued use by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 
all agencies to the GIS maps and any other supportive technologies and 
databases created for the Land Buy Back Program.

    Question 4. Are all the GIS maps created for the Land Buy Back 
Program able to be used in conjunction with TAAMS and other Department 
land use programs, or are there legislative changes Congress can do to 
ensure the data is usable across programs?

    Question 5. Would the Department having any concerns with Congress 
passing legislation to allow BIA to store electronic wills?

    Question 6. Would the Department have any concerns with Congress 
passing legislation to centralize where wills and estate planning 
documents are stored?

    Question 7. At the end of the Land Buy Back Program 29,975 
``whereabouts unknown'' account holders remained. Has there been any 
progress made on this list? And if so please provide the updated 
numbers.

    Question 8. The Land Buy Back Program took any land interests 
acquired through voluntary sales and placed it into trust for the 
benefit of the tribe of jurisdiction.

    8a) What statutory changes would need to be made to ensure that 
restricted fee was also an optional land status for voluntary land 
purchases? Would the Department support a process that would allow land 
interests purchased to be classified as restricted fee? Why or why not?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. Could you explain the impact of the Land Buy Back 
Program on bringing new infrastructure to Indian Country, particularly 
on highly fractionated reservations?

    Question 2. How does DOI assess and prioritize fractionated 
interests in lands for acquisition in its re-established Indian Land 
Consolidation Program? Additionally, does the Department take into 
consideration instances where the land can be immediately put to 
beneficial use?

    Question 3. What is the current estimate of departmental costs 
associated with managing fractionated interests in land? And of that 
estimated cost to purchase remaining fractionated interests, how much 
is needed for administrative costs compared to land purchases? How do 
you anticipate that will change over the next 10 years?

    Question 4. What could be the potential cost advantages or 
disadvantages of hiring third-party contractors to assist with program 
implementation?

    Question 5. How many tribal allotments pass through probate in an 
average year? How successful has estate planning been in reducing this 
number? What is DOI doing to reduce the probate backlog?

    Question 6. How does DOI ensure that tribes and tribal members are 
aware of DOI probate processing and estate planning services?

                                 [all]