[Senate Report 106-132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 244
106th Congress                                                   Report

                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    106-132

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



 
   AMENDING PUBLIC LAW 105-188 TO PROVIDE FOR THE MINERAL LEASING OF 
                    CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS IN OKLAHOMA

                                _______
                                

                 August 2, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Campbell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 944]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 944) to amend Public Law 105-188 to provide for the 
mineral leasing of certain Indian lands in Oklahoma, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                Purpose

    The purpose of S. 944 is to amend Public Law 105-188, an 
Act to Permit the Mineral Leasing of Indian Land Located Within 
the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in Any Case in Which There 
is Consent From a Majority Interest In the Parcel of Land Under 
Consideration For Lease, which allows the Secretary of the 
Interior to approve leases of allotted lands on the Fort 
Berthold Indian Reservation, pursuant to the authority of the 
Mineral Leasing Act 1909,\1\ as amended, where more than 50 
percent of those owning the mineral estate of an allotment have 
agreed to a lease for oil or gas. Under the provisions of S. 
944, the Secretary may also approve such leases if they are 
lands held in trust as part of the former Indian reservations 
of any of the following seven Indian tribes: the Comanche 
Indian Tribe; the Kiowa Indian Tribe; the Apache Tribe; the 
Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; the Wichita and Affiliated 
Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, and Tawakonie); the Delaware 
Tribe of Western Oklahoma; or the Caddo Indian Tribe, all 
located in Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Act of March 3, 1909, 35 Stat. 783, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Background

    P.L. 105-188 was enacted during the 105th Congress in 
response to concerns that current law may require unanimous 
approval of all those who own undivided fractional interests in 
an allotment before it can be leased, leaving otherwise 
attractive parcels of land passed over for oil and gas 
development.\2\ The economic and opportunity costs attributable 
to this dynamic prove great, particularly for those tribes with 
potentially exploitable mineral resources. This was occurring 
even though the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was located in 
an area that was subject of significant oil and gas 
exploration. The source of this difficulty can be traced to the 
now-discredited policy of Allotment. Under the Allotment 
policy, approximately 100 million acres of land held in trust 
for Indian tribes passed from tribal ownership. Some of this 
land was declared surplus and sold directly to non-Indians by 
the Federal government. A great deal of this land was conveyed 
to individual tribal members in allotments of approximately 160 
acres of less. Originally, these lands were conveyed with 
restrictions against alienation to protect the equitable owners 
of these lands from losing title, and the beneficial use of the 
land. However, through sale, fraud, chicanery, and manipulation 
of the system that was ostensibly created to protect Indians, 
these interests were often lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ A federal district court in New Mexico issued an unreported 
opinion refusing to allow a non-unanimous lease of allotted lands. In 
that case, both the process for negotiating the lease and the lease 
itself were found to be a breach of the Secretary's trust obligation. 
In addition, the case involved more than non-consenting owners, some of 
the owners of undivided interests were adamantly opposed to the lease. 
McClanahan v. Hodel, 14 Indian Law Reporter 3113 (D. N.M. 1987). As 
discussed further, at least two federal statutes provide explicit 
authority for the leasing of allotted lands without unanimous approval. 
It is fair to say that the full range of the Secretary's authority to 
approve leases without the explicit consent of all those owning each 
undivided interest in an allotment has neither been fully explored not 
definitively resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even where tribal members retain ownership of allotted 
lands, problems traced to the allotment policy persist. In 
particular, this policy allowed state probate laws to determine 
the intestate disposition of allotments, displacing inherent 
tribal authority over a tribe's members and their property, and 
ignoring tribal culture and traditions. Non-trust property 
could be passed to each succeeding generation in a manner 
consistent with each tribe's laws, practices, and traditions, 
but trust property was conveyed pursuant to state laws that 
were often unfamiliar, and which Indian tribes and their 
members were unable to alter or affect. As a result, 
testamentary dispositions were rarely made for allotted lands. 
State probate law governing real estate generally provided that 
each successive generation received equal undivided co-
tenancies with no rights of survivorship. As a result, as each 
generation passed the undivided fractional interests in each 
allotment were further splintered. The Deputy Solicitor for the 
Department of Interior, explained:

          The cause of this fractionation was that Congress 
        enacted probate laws which provided that as individual 
        Indian owners died, their property descended to their 
        heirs as undivided fractional interests in the land. So 
        if you do the math quickly, if an Indian owner had a 
        160-acre allotment and died and had four heirs, the 
        heirs did not inherit 40 acres each; each inherited a 
        25 percent interest in the 160-acre allotment. When 
        they died, assuming that each had four heirs, each of 
        the sixteen heirs inherited a 6.25 percent interest. If 
        you take that just one generation more, and assuming 
        that each of the heirs had four heirs, each of the 64 
        owners then had a 1.56 percent share. And this 
        exponential fractionation occurs with each successive 
        generation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Sen. Rep. 105-205, quoting the statement of Deputy Solicitor 
Edward B. Cohen before the Committee on October 6, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this statement indicates, fractionation increases 
geometrically and as the size of each interest shrinks, the 
value of the interest also shrinks. As a result, each new 
generation of owners must commit their time and resources 
toward keeping track of increasing smaller, and less valuable 
interests in lands. The difficulty presented to the economical 
use of such lands is obvious. Although the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs has a responsibility to provide allotment owners with 
information about their interest, it is less likely that these 
owners will assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with the 
task (for example by keeping the BIA informed of changes in 
their address or by engaging in estate planning) if these 
fractional interests hold little value. Conversely, the more 
Congress and the Department of Interior can do to facilitate 
use of these lands, the more valuable these interests will be 
and the more likely it will be that the owners of fractional 
interests will be in a better position to take control of and 
extract value from these lands.

                        The Need for Legislation

    S. 944 is one example of a proposal that is intended to 
increase the value of allotted lands by making it possible for 
the mineral interests of these lands to be leased if more than 
50 percent of those owning the mineral interest approve such a 
lease. By making it clear that unanimity is not required, those 
interested in developing the oil and gas resources on these 
lands will not be dissuaded from considering or moving forward 
with these plans simply because it is unlikely that it will be 
possible to contact and obtain the approval of each of the 
owners of each allotment.
    Federal statutes either fail to explicitly allow the 
leasing of allotments without unanimous consent or they impose 
procedural impediments and limitations for when a lease can be 
approved without the consent of every person who owns an 
undivided interest. Understandably, this situation makes 
potential lessors reluctant to commit resources to trying to 
lease allotted lands if their efforts could potentially be 
stymied by a party owning less than 1% of the undivided 
interest in an allotment. By making it clear that a lease may 
be approved by the Secretary even if absolute unanimity is not 
achieved, the Committee believes that this significant 
impediment will be removed; an impediment which has caused a 
number of potential lessors to refuse to even consider (much 
less makes bids upon) these alloted lands for development.
    Records indicate that land bases of each of the seven 
tribes included in S. 944 were extensively allotted to 
individual members. In addition, the ownership of the 
allotments on these former reservations is highly fractioned. 
In such situations, requiring unanimous approval is arguably 
equivalent to placing a prohibition on the leasing of these 
lands.

A. Prior legislation addressing landowner consent

    The approach taken in S. 944 represents a ``second wave'' 
in addressing consent requirements for allotted lands. The 
``first wave'' addressed some situations where those owning 
undivided interests had not been determined, could not be 
located, or could not reach an agreement on lease.
    A 1940 Act is an example of such ``first wave'' approach. 
In 1940, Congress enacted 54 Stat. 745, (25 U.S.C. Sec. 380) to 
allow for the leasing of allotments without requiring unanimous 
consent approval. But this law specifically excluded leases for 
``oil and gas mining purposes.'' In addition, the law is only 
applicable to two distinct situations: the original allottee 
was deceased and either the heirs or devisees were not 
determined or the heirs and devisees were not detemined or the 
heirs and devisees have been located ``and such lands are not 
in use by any of the heirs and the heirs have not been able 
during the three months' period to agree upon a lease.'' \4\ 
Although this provision allows leases without unanimous 
approval, it still allows even the smallest minority interest 
holder to frustrate the decision of those holdings an 
overwhelming majority interest, at least temporarily. In 
addition, there is some evidence that some BIA agency or area 
offices may still require 100% approval before approving 
leases.\5\ Such a practice would violate the terms of federal 
statutes and the modern trend of federal policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The phrase ``such lands are not in use by any of the heirs'' is 
the source of the ``use rights'' discussed in footnote 9.
    \5\ See the text accompaning footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1955 Congress added a proviso to the Mineral Leasing Act 
of 1909 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 396), which allows for leasing for all 
types of minerals, without full consent.\6\ This proviso, 
however, was restricted to circumstances where the heirs were 
either not determined or could not be located. In another 
section of the same Act, however, Congress made Sec. 380 
applicable to Sec. 396, but did not remove the provision making 
Sec. 380 inapplicable to oil and gas leases. Thus, explicit 
authority for the approval of oil and gas leases involving 
allotted lands without unanimous consent appears to be limited 
to the proviso of Sec. 396. (Other minerals could, of course, 
be leased under the terms of Sec. 380.) Specific authority for 
non-unanimous leases is necessary in the oil and gas content 
for two reasons. First, with the exception of Ft. Berthold, 
present law does not specifically authorize the Secretary to 
approve leases, if one fractional interest holder fails or 
refuses to consent to the lease, even if that person holds only 
a very small fractional interest. Also, even if Sec. 380 were 
applicable to oil and gas leases, it would require three months 
of inactivity before a lease could be approved by the 
Secretary, even when the majority of the landowers have reached 
an agreement on a lease. This long and cumbersome delay rarely 
inures to the benefit of either the majority or minority 
interest holders, especially when a working majority has agreed 
to a lease, and the Secretary is still responsible for 
reviewing leases as a trustee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Act of August 9, 1955, 69 Stat. 540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1994 American Indian Agriculture Resources Management 
Act \7\ (AIARMA) and P.L. 105-188 represent the ``second wave'' 
of legislation, which clarifies that unanimous approval is not 
a prerequisite for Secretarial approval of leases, nor are 
owners required to wait three months if a majority of them have 
agreed to sign a lease. In the Committee report accompanying 
the AIARMA, the House Committee on Natural Resources Committee 
explained why this policy was necessary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ P.L. 103-177, Act of Dec. 3, 1993.

          [The AIARMA] also recognizes that the owners of a 
        majority interest in trust land may enter into a lease 
        agreement that binds the other owners if they are 
        assured fair market value for their land. The Committee 
        intends this provision to address the issue of highly 
        fractioned undivided heirship lands lying idle due to 
        the number of ownerships intersts in one parcel of 
        land. The Committee has received testimony from the 
        Comanche Indian tribe of Oklahoma, members of the Fort 
        Still Apache tribe of Oklahoma, and the Indian Soil 
        Conservation Association which indicate that a major 
        problem faced by Indian allottees is the Bureau 
ofIndian Affairs requirement that 100 percent of the owners agree to a 
negotiated lease agreement. Although the current regulations [25 CFR 
162.6(b)] allow owners of a majority interest in the land to bind the 
other owners, many BIA Area Offices still adhere to a 100 percent 
consent requirement. This is particularly a problem in Oklahoma where 
witnesses testified about certain tracts of land with over three 
hundred owners. The Committee has included this provision to break the 
gridlock and allow individual Indian landowners to bring their lands 
into production.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ H.R. Rep. 103-367, 103rd Cong., 1st. Sess. (1993).

    The purpose of these statutes is to preclude a ``tryanny of 
the minority'' that could result if parties owning even less 
than 1% of the undivided interests in an allotment could 
preclude the leasing of these lands. To be sure, such 
legislation has not gone so far as divesting ``heirs and 
devisees'' of their ``use rights;'' but neither have those acts 
explicitly expanded these rights to those who obtain an 
interest in an allotment by conveyance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The statutory basis for ``use rights'' is 25 U.S.C. Sec. 380, 
which appears to condition the BIA's authority to approve the lease of 
allotted lands without majority approval upon a finding that ``such 
lands are not in use by any of the heirs.'' This requirement is 
included in the regulations that prescribe the Secretary's authority to 
approve leases. See 25 C.F.R. Sec. 162.2(a) (1997). Presumably, such 
``use rights'' have little application in the oil and gas context. In 
general, the scope of these use rights has been limited to the direct 
heirs and devises of the original allottee. See, e.g., Fenner v. Acting 
Billings Area Director, 29 I.B.I.A. 116 (1996) (holding that an Indian 
may not acquire use rights through the purchase of an interest in 
allotted lands). It is therefore surprising and potentially troubling 
that the Interior Board of Indian Appeals interpreted the AIARMA as 
conferring use rights on purchasers. Randall Emm and William Frank v. 
Phoenix Area Director, 30 I.B.I.A. 72 (1996). Rather than strengthening 
the relative authority of landowners when a consensus on leasing is 
reached by the majority, this interpretation could (potentially) expand 
the number of minority interest holders who could frustrate the wishes 
of a working majority. There is no legislative history that supports 
such an extension of use rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Legislative History

    S. 944 was introduced on May 3, 1999 by Senator James M. 
Inhofe (Oklahoma) and referred to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs. On June 16, 1999, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) was 
added as a co-sponsor.

                         Summary of Provisions

    As enacted during the 105th Congress, the definition of 
``Indian lands'' in P.L. 105-188 is limited to the Fort 
Berthold Indian Reservation, for purposes of the Act. S. 944 
would amend that definition to include the following lands 
within any of the former Indian reservations of each of the 
following seven Indian tribes: the Comanche Indian Tribe; the 
Kiowa Indian Tribe; the Apache Tribe; the Fort Sill Apache 
Tribe of Oklahoma; the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, 
Keechi, Waco, and Tawakonie); the Delaware Tribe of Western 
Oklahoma; and the Caddo Indian Tribe, all located in Oklahoma.
    S. 944 would also amend the title of P.L. 105-188 to 
include ``certain former Indian Reservation in Oklahoma.''

            Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Vote

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, in an open business 
session on June 16, 1999, by voice vote, ordered the bill 
reported to the Senate, with the recommendation to pass S. 944.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 amends P.L. 105-188 by including the names of 
seven Indian tribes located in western Oklahoma: the Comanche 
Indian Tribe; the Kiowa Indian Tribe; the Apache Tribe; the 
Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; the Wichita and Affiliated 
Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, and Tawakonie) located in 
Oklahoma; the Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma; or the Caddo 
Indian Tribe.

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The cost estimate for S. 569, as calculated by the 
Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 22, 1999.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office, has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 944, a bill to amend 
Public Law 105-188 to provide for the mineral leasing of 
certain Indian lands in Oklahoma.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

S. 944--A bill to amend Public Law 105-188 to provide for the mineral 
        leasing of certain Indian lands in Oklahoma

    S. 944 would modify the conditions under which the 
Secretary of the Interior may approve a mineral lease or 
agreement that affects individually owned Indian land on 
certain former Indian reservations in Oklahoma. Under current 
law, approval of such leases requires the consent of all of the 
individuals that have an undivided interest in a property. This 
bill would ease that requirement by making the Secretary's 
approval contingent upon the consent of a simple majority of 
individual owners. Once approved by the Secretary, an agreement 
would be binding on all owners of the property, and any 
receipts would be distributed in proportion to each owner's 
interest in the property.
    Based on information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, CBO 
estimates that implementing this legislation would not 
significantly affect discretionary spending. CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 944 would have no effect on direct spending or 
receipts, because any income resulting from agreements approved 
under this legislation would be paid directly to the Indian 
owners or to the appropriate tribal government. Hence, pay-as-
you-go procedures would not apply to the bill.
    S. 944 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. This estimate was 
approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 944 will 
have a minimal impact on regulatory requirements and that the 
enactment of S. 944 will reduce the amount of paperwork 
associated with the leasing of lands within the seven former 
Oklahoma Indian reservations covered by the bill.

                        Executive Communications

    The Committee received a letter from the Department of 
Interior, which is reprinted below, providing the views of the 
Administration on S. 944.
                        Department of the Interior,
                                   Office of the Secretary,
                                     Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Campbell: Two years ago, the Department 
provided supportive testimony on S. 1079, the precursor to 
Public Law 105-188, which permits the mineral leasing of 
individually allotted Indian land within the Fort Berthold 
Indian Reservation when there is consent from a majority 
interest in the parcel of land under consideration for lease. 
We are in support of the enactment of S. 944, a bill to amend 
Public Law 105-188 to also provide for similar mineral leasing 
of certain Indian lands in Oklahoma. We consider S. 944 a well 
intentioned move to make allotted lands competitive in an area 
of the country where oil and gas development provides a 
significant part of the income that many Indian land owners 
receive. We understand that the Oklahoma Tribes included within 
this legislation support this legislation.
    Although we support enactment of S. 944, we are seriously 
concerned about the lack of progress in addressing the issue of 
fractionated ownership of Indian lands generally. As you know, 
this problem is one of the major impediments to economic 
development and prosperity in Indian Country. If it is not 
confronted and resolved expeditiously in a constructive manner, 
it will undermine all of the efforts we are making to resolve 
past mismanagement of Indian trust assets.
    Fractionated ownership of land is a problem caused by 
peculiarities in federal Indian law. With the passing of each 
generation, the heirs of the original allottees continue to 
acquire interests in land which are undivided; i.e., parcels of 
land which are not separately identified in a specific owner. 
As the number of owners increases in these parcels, the 
administration of the land becomes increasingly more difficult. 
Approximately 80 percent of the Bureau of Indian Afairs' real 
estate services budget in used to administer less than 20 
percent of the lands under its jurisdiction.
    The Administration proposed a broader legislative solution 
(H.R. 2743) to fractionated ownership in the 105th Congress. As 
referenced in testimony for a joint hearing before this 
Committee and the House Resources Committee on H.R. 3782, the 
Tribal Trust Fund Settlement Act on July 22, 1998, increased 
fractionation of Indian lands is ``one of the root causes of 
our trust asset management difficulties.'' Unfortunately, H.R. 
2743 was not reported out by the House Resources Committee and 
no further action occurred on it in the 105th Congress. Staff 
discussions on a similar proposal have been occurring for the 
past several months and I understand that your Committee 
intends to introduce its own version of a general fractionation 
bill shortly. The Administration is very supportive of this 
effort and interested in working with you to ensure passage of 
a mutually acceptable bill before the end of the 106th 
Congress.
    The Act of March 3, 1909 (25 U.S.C. 396) provides that 
consent of all owners of a tract of trust or restricted land 
must be obtained prior to approval of a mineral lease by the 
Secretary of the Interior. As a consequence of this statutory 
requirement, firms engaged in mineral exploration and 
development are less likely to lease Indian lands because of 
the costs associated with locating and acquiring the consent of 
all owners to a parcel of Indian land. The result is that the 
Indian owners do not gain maximum economic benefit from their 
trust lands. This 100 percent consent requirement is not found 
in other laws governing the use of Indian lands. for instance, 
rights of way across Indian land can be granted by the 
Secretary when a majority of the interests consent; and surface 
leases may be granted by the Secretary when the owners of the 
land are unable to agree upon a lease. Timber issues likewise 
require less than 100 percent participation. Title 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. 406 provides:

          Upon request of the owners of a majority Indian 
        interest in land in which any undivided interest is 
        held under a trust or other patent containing 
        restrictions on alienations, the Secretary of the 
        Interior is authorized to sell all undivided Indian 
        trust or restricted interests in any part of the timber 
        on such land.

    While agricultural and timber uses are renewable resources 
in contrast to mineral reserves which are depletable and thus 
non-replaceable, the rational for majority consent still 
applies. The Department believes the 1909 statute did not 
contemplate the ownership of Indian land becoming as highly 
fractionated as now exists, or that the statute would foreclose 
mineral development on significant amounts of alloted lands. 
Unlike other early statutes, the 1909 provision has not been 
amended since enactment to conform with contemporary times.
    The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
is no objection to the submission of this legislative report 
from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
                                                Kevin Gover
                               Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.

                         Effect on Existing Law

    S. 944 will modify the manner in which 25 U.S.C. 396 
applies to the approval by the Secretary of the Interior of 
leases of allotted land on the former Indian reservations of 
the Comanche Indian Tribe; the Kiowa Indian Tribe; the Apache 
Tribe; the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; the Wichita and 
Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, and Tawakonie); the 
Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma; and the Caddo Indian Tribe, 
all located in Oklahoma. Like P.L. 105-188, S. 944 is also 
intended to supercede any contrary requirement or 
interpretation of the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 
P.L. 97-82 or any other statute. It also eliminate any 
statutory requirement for public auctions or advertised sales 
for leases of allotted land for oil and gas purposes.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
enactment of S. 944 will result in the following changes in 
P.L. 105-188, with existing language which is to be deleted in 
black brackets and the new language to be added in italic:
    (a) In General.--
          (1) Definitions.--In this section:
                  (A) Indian land.--The term ``Indian land'' 
                means an undivided interest in a single parcel 
                of land that--
                          [(i) is located within the Fort 
                        Berthold Indian Reservation in North 
                        Dakota; and]
                          (i) is located within--
                                  (I) the Fort Berthold Indian 
                                Reservation in North Dakota; or
                                  (II) a former Indian 
                                reservation located in Oklahoma 
                                of--
                                          (aa) the Comanche 
                                        Indian Tribe;
                                          (bb) the Kiowa Indian 
                                        Tribe;
                                          (cc) the Apache 
                                        Tribe;
                                          (dd) the Fort Sill 
                                        Apache Tribe of 
                                        Oklahoma;
                                          (ee) the Wichita and 
                                        Affiliated Tribes 
                                        (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, 
                                        and Tawakonie) located 
                                        in Oklahoma;
                                          (ff) the Delaware 
                                        Tribe of Western 
                                        Oklahoma; or
                                          (gg) the Caddo Indian 
                                        Tribe; and
                          (ii) is held in trust or restricted 
                        status by the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    And in the title of P.L. 105-188, by making the following 
change: ``An Act to permit the mineral leasing of Indian land 
located within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and certain 
former Indian Reservations in Oklahoma in any case in which 
there is consent from a majority interest in the parcel of land 
under consideration for lease.''

                                  
