[House Report 107-706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-706
======================================================================
YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE AND SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE EQUITABLE COMPENSATION ACT
_______
October 1, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 434]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 434) to provide equitable compensation to the Yankton Sioux
Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska
for the loss of value of certain lands, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 434 is to provide equitable compensation
to the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux
Tribe of Nebraska for the loss of value of certain lands.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin program to protect urban and rural areas
from devastating floods of the Missouri River and to provide
for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa. The Fort Randall and
Gavins Point projects overlay the western boundary of the
Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation and the eastern boundary of
the Santee Sioux Indian Reservation respectively. The projects,
which are major components of the Pick-Sloan program, impound a
large quantity of water and generate a substantial amount of
hydropower.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers condemned the Indian lands
used for the Fort Randall and Gavins Point projects. The
Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes claim they did not
receive just compensation for the taking of productive
agricultural Indian lands, while the United States gave five
other Indian reservations upstream compensation for direct
damages from the Pick-Sloan program. The Yankton Sioux and
Santee Sioux tribes claim that their previous settlement
agreement with the United States to provide compensation for
the past takings by condemnation did not account for the
increase in property values between the date of taking and the
date of settlement.
In addition to the financial compensation provided under
the previous settlement agreement, S. 434 authorizes additional
compensation in an aggregate amount equal to $23,023,743 plus
interest for the loss of value of 2,851.40 acres to the Yankton
Sioux Tribe, and an aggregate amount equal to $4,789,010 plus
interest for the loss of value of 593.10 acres to the Santee
Sioux Tribe.
COMMITTEE ACTION
S. 434 was introduced on March 1, 2001, by Senator Tom
Daschle (D-SD). On July 24, 2002, S. 434 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent. S. 434 was referred to the House Committee
on Resources on July 25, 2002. On September 12, 2002, the Full
Committee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were offered
and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of this bill would increase direct spending by $49
million in 2013, but it would have no significant impact on the
federal budget for the 2003-2012 time period.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to provide equitable compensation to
the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux
Tribe of Nebraska for the loss of value of certain lands.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 19, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 434, the Yankton
Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J.
Walker.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 434--Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe Equitable
Compensation Act
Summary: S. 434 would compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe
and the Santee Sioux Tribe for the taking of certain tribal
lands by the federal government. CBO estimates that enacting
this act would have no significant impact on the federal budget
over the 2003-2012 period. Enacting S. 434 would increase
direct spending by an estimated $49 million, but pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply because the spending would not occur
until fiscal year 2013.
S. 434 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Tribal governments might incur some costs as a result of this
act, but those costs would be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates
that enacting S. 434 would result in direct spending of $49
million in 2013, but would have no significant impact on the
federal budget before then. For this estimate, CBO assumes that
S. 434 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2003.
S. 434 would provide compensation to the two tribes for the
taking of 3,445 acres of land by the federal government for
various water projects. The act would establish the Yankton
Sioux Tribe Development Trust Fund and the Santee Sioux Tribe
Development Trust Fund and would direct the Secretary of the
Treasury to deposit a total of $28 million into interest-
bearing accounts to benefit the tribes on the first day of the
11th fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment. An
additional deposit equal to the amount of interest that the
fund would have earned if the fund had been capitalized and
invested in 2003 would be made at the same time. CBO estimates
that this additional payment would be $21 million, for a total
deposit of $49 million in 2013. Once the Secretary pays these
amounts, any monetary claims the tribes may have against the
United States regarding the affected lands would be
extinguished. Starting in 2013, the act would allow the tribes
to spend amounts equivalent to the annual interest earned on
the fund pursuant to a tribal spending plan.
Payments to certain trust funds that are held and managed
in a fiduciary capacity by the federal government on behalf of
Indian tribes are treated as payments to a nonfederal entity.
As a result, CBO expects that the entire amount deposited to
the fund in 2013 would be recorded as budget authority and
outlays in that year. Because the trust funds would be
nonbudgetary, the subsequent use of such funds by the tribe
would not affect federal outlays.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. For the
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the
effects through 2007 are counted. CBO estimates that enacting
S. 434 would not affect direct spending or receipts in any of
those years.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 434
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA, but it would impose some conditions on the
affected tribes for receipt of federal funds. The act would
require the tribes to prepare and adopt plans for using
payments from the trust fund and to obtain audits of their
expenditures. The tribes would receive significant benefits
from enactment of this legislation.
Previous CBO estimate: On April 16, 2002, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 434 as ordered reported by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs on March 21, 2002. On September 19,
2002, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2408, an
identically titled bill, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Resources on September 12, 2002. These different
versions of the legislation are very similar, and our cost
estimates are the same.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Lanette J. Walker;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie
Miller; and Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.