<DOC> [108 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:89982.wais] S. Hrg. 108-379 AMERICAN INDIAN PROBATE REFORM ACT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 550 TO AMEND INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION ACT TO IMPROVE PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROBATE OF TRUST AND RESTRICTED LAND __________ OCTOBER 15, 2003 WASHINGTON, DC 89-982 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, KENT CONRAD, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HARRY REID, Nevada CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page S. 550, text of.................................................. 2 Statements: Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs...................... 1 Lyons, Maurice, chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, CA................................................ 67 Matt, Fred, chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT.......................................... 64 Nordwall, Wayne, director, Western Region for Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 60 Nunez, Austin, chairman, Indian Land Working Group, Albuquerque, NM............................................ 70 Oshiro, Lisa, directing attorney, California Indian Legal Services, Washington, DC................................... 68 Appendix Prepared statements: Hall, Tex G., president, National Congress of American Indians.................................................... 75 Lyons, Maurice............................................... 73 Matt, Fred (with attachment)................................. 82 Nordwall, Wayne.............................................. 96 Nunez, Austin (with attachment).............................. 106 Oshiro, Lisa................................................. 143 AMERICAN INDIAN PROBATE REFORM ACT ---------- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2003 U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 485, Senate Russell Building, the Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (chairman of the committee) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS The Chairman. The committee will be in session. We have been notified that we have stacked roll calls votes at 10:40 a.m. Senator Inouye is probably not going to attend this morning, so I am going ahead and start the hearing. I need to tell everybody that because we have those stacked roll calls votes more than likely we will not be coming back unless you want to wait for several hours, and I do not think most people would want to do that. I have another conflict, as well. So we are going to take all the testimony and ask everyone who is testifying to keep their statements down to about five minutes or so. Most of the questions that Senator Inouye and I have will be submitted in writing because of the very abbreviated time that we have in the hearing this morning. This past May this committee held a hearing on S. 550, the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003. Yesterday, I introduced a complete substitute to S. 550 that is based on meetings and a dialog held across the Nation with many Indian tribes since the May 7 hearing. The goal of S. 550 and the substitute are the same--to stop the fractionation of Indian lands and to help reconsolidate those lands. We hope this can be done through a commonsense approach and commonsense changes to the rules governing Indian probate. [Text of S. 550 follows:] <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> The Chairman. As an aside, the Capitol Police have also notified us on two or three occasions that they have had complaints from some of the Senators who have offices right across the hall. When we leave today, please keep the noise down in the hall. I will start with our first witness today, Wayne Nordwall, director of the Western Region for Bureau of Indian Affairs. Please come up and start, please. STATEMENT OF WAYNE NORDWALL, DIRECTOR, WESTERN REGION FOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Nordwall. I am Wayne Nordwall, director of the Western Region for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for its continued interest in this matter. This is one of the most critical issues that faces the Department at this point. It also critically affects the lives and property of thousands of Indians throughout the country. We are very grateful that the committee has continued to work on this issue. One of the things that we had hoped to do when we met in May was to have a set of recommendations ready to submit before the next hearing, but unfortunately because of the Bureau reorganization, Trust reform projects, and trying to comply with some of the Cobell issues, we have not done that. But we have worked with the committee, the Indian Land Working Group, and other people. I think we are moving forward on this thing. We cannot emphasize how critical this issue really is. We have all talked for years about the exponential growth of fractionation. I think that is starting to begin to rear its ugly head more and more on a weekly and monthly basis. I do not have the graph with me, and I know you have seen it before, where if you start in 1887 and you go up to 1920, 1930, 1940, and 1950, this line showing the increase of fractionation is relatively flat until you get to the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's where it goes almost vertical. We are at the point now where if we cannot correct this problem within a decade or less, it may overwhelm us and we will not be able to do anything with it. Our current computer systems are at their maximum limit. At this point, we are having to migrate our title data from the existing LRIS system over to TAAMs title. We are trying to put that in nationwide. The system that pays out many of the allottees is called IRMS. That system is literally on the verge of collapse. It is an old mechanical system that was developed in the 1960's. The software is no longer supported. We have to develop another system. Of course, this whole fractionation issue is literally about ready to crush many of those systems. We have to do something relatively soon. In our testimony we have a couple of examples of the problems that fractionation causes. I am just going to go through a couple of others just because I thought they were timely at this point to show this exponential growth. In 1992, the General Accounting Office [GAO] did a profile of land ownership on 12 highly fractionated reservations. One of the findings that they found in here was that there were 80,000 discrete owners on this 12 reservations, yet there were over 1 million fractional interests involved. I think many times people do not understand how there can be so many fractions when there is such a small number of Indians. For instance, the reason this happens is one person may inherit a one two-thousandths interests from his uncle, and then in a separate probate a one five-hundredths interests from an aunt. Then if the surface and the subsurface are split, then it causes even more problems with fractionation. We did not have the exact software that they used in order to compile these numbers. We attempted to update this report about 6 months ago as part of the pilot project to see how we could make that a national program. We could not get a full 10- year span because of the court injunction. Some of our computer systems are still off-line. What we found was that the problem has increased on those reservations from 1992-2000, it grew by 40 percent on those 12 reservations. We have 1,400,000 fractional interests on those 12 reservations. In 1992 we also had a probate study where we went out and tried to analyze the condition of the probate program. At that point we found that there were approximately 6,000 cases that were backlogged. We just did that same study again. Now there are over 18,000 cases. As you can see, this exponential growth is starting to grow. I called the Rocky Mountain region before I left Phoenix and asked them if they could send me an example of some of the problems they are having. They have a Turtle Mountain public domain allotment which is located off reservation. It is 80 acres. It is worth about $10,000. It is leased every year for $240. Right now there are 60 pending probates on that allotment. The average cost of a probate is $3,000. That is $180,000 worth of probate on that one alone. There are 11 dower interest holders, six life estates, 35 interests of passed into fee. Once they go into fee we lose control. We have no idea who the actual owners are at this point. There are 558 trust interests. Even if we just figure the average cost of $150 per account to maintain those, that is $83,000 just to maintain the accounts on those 558 interests. When you add in the probate, you can see the administrative costs far exceed the value of the land. This is becoming a more frequent problem all through Indian country. We are still off the internet. I think sometimes people tend to forget that. They send stuff and it bounces back. We did not get the revisions to S. 550 until last night. I have not had a chance to look at them. As soon as I get back we will submit detailed comments on S. 550. The Chairman. I would appreciate that. Mr. Nordwall. One of the things that we were concerned about in the original S. 550 is that it dealt solely with probate. At this point there are issues that have arisen in the implication of the 2000 amendments that require more than just addressing probate. I think one of the things that was in the original bill was a provision that said at the end of 3 years the Secretary of the Interior is supposed to submit amendments to correct any problems that have been identified. That was taken out because everybody figured the Secretary had that authority anyway. It has been three years. There are several things that the Department is focusing on. I will just go through some of the ideas that we have discussed. We have a draft that we have been working with the committee members and with the Indian Land Working Group. We have looked at the California Indian Legal Services draft. Everybody has spent time working on this. We do have a draft floating around within the Department with some ideas. I will just go through some of the ideas that are in there. Hopefully, once we look at S. 550, rather than perhaps submit a Departmental revision, we will just modify S. 550. It seems that many of the things that we were concerned about are now addressed in this bill. The Chairman. We will address any further comments you have when you give us those recommendations. Mr. Nordwall. Fine. The first thing is that we agree that there needs to be a definition of highly fractionated land. At this point, because of the problems, we need to address them differently than some of the ones that are less fractionated. We have to expand the Secretary's partition authority. At present, the existing statute authorizes the Secretary to partition only if it is in the best interest of the Indians. That has always been construed to mean economic best interests. In other words, if you have an 80-acre grazing allotment in North Dakota, and there are 80 owners, you cannot divide it and give each one an acre because that acre has no separate utility. There is no way in or out. It has no value. What we want to do is to allow partition-in-kind. If someone has a home site, you can partition it out and try to deal with that and create a usable unit for each person and not be focused on finance. We also may want to consider is partition by sale. If you wind up with an allotment with 400 owners, and 30 of them decide they just want to sell and get out of it, right now it is almost impossible to do that. We want to set up a procedure to where they can, in effect, go in and petition the Secretary and ultimately may be have a review by the Courts in order to sell these things to either co-owners, third parties, or to the tribes. The other thing which was in S. 550, and is critical, is to create a uniform Federal probate code. The existing reliance on 50 States is just not working, especially as these things get more complex, and especially as more people wind up inheriting land on different reservations in different States. We have more and more circumstances where that happens. Under our proposal, one of the big criticisms of the old provisions is that it had very limited ability for people to devise property to their wives and children. The 2000 amendments have the same problem. They limit who you can will your property to. That ended up sending a shock wave through Indian country with a lot of people coming in wanting to convert their land to fee so they could will their property to their non-Indian spouses and children. What we have proposed is that in this probate code that there be very liberal provisions for people who write wills. In teste is a different issue. If somebody does not write a will, then we think there has to be a limited class. We just cannot have it open-ended so that it keeps fractionating indefinitely. One of the other things that we think is critical is that we have to have the ability to purchase these fractional interests during the probate process. There are four or five special acts that relate to particular tribes, where during the probate process the tribe can go in and in lieu of that land going to that owner, they can pony up the money and take that land themselves. We think the Secretary and the tribe should both have that authority. Again, the details of how that would work are things we still need to work out. Another critical issue is to come up with an expedited probate process, particularly on small money estates. Right now we have hundreds and hundreds of accounts that are less than one dollar, and yet we still wind up having to probate them through the normal probate process which costs thousands of dollars. We want to come up with some sort of an in-house administrative procedure to deal with these highly fractionated small estates and not have a full-blown probate hearing. One of the other issues that was discussed at length in the 2000 amendments and in the original act in 1984 was giving the tribes the authority to probate these estates in tribal court. They currently do not do that. They can draft a probate code but it has to be probated by the Secretary. Again, one of the issues that we are considering is allowing the tribes to probate in tribal court. One of the big problems again, of course, is: What do you do in those circumstances where a person owns land on multiple reservations? Who has primary jurisdiction? Will there be a split? We do not want people to have to go through multiple probates. We want to have the Secretary to perhaps have greater authority under the land acquisition program. At present, whenever we purchase land under the acquisition program, it automatically goes to the tribe. In addition to the fractionation, we have checkerboarding where we have fee land, we have trust land, and we have tribal land. We think that perhaps we should be able to sit down with the tribes, help them work on a consolidation plan, and for those interests that are within that consolidation area, to convey those to the tribes as we do under the existing statute, but if they are outside, sell them to co-owners or something else to consolidate those interests. Finally is the whole issue of whereabouts unknown and unclaimed property. Again, we have thousands of accounts with just pennies in them that we cannot locate the owner. Every State in the Union has an unclaimed property statute where if there is no activity in that account for a certain amount of time, it goes into a fund. You post a notice in a local newspaper. Every year you see these things come out. Then after a certain number of years it just goes to the State fund. In this case, we propose it go into the land acquisition fund. The bottomline is that we have made much progress. The committee has put much work into this effort. We appreciate that. Again, we want to emphasize how critical it is that we try to come up with a solution. One of the things that we are concerned about and we are working with everyone to try to fix as much as possible is to water the bill down, to be blunt. The history of this initiative since the 1920's and 1930's is that every time Congress attempts to put real teeth in the bill, there are complaints in Indian country. Then it gets watered down to the point where it is diluted and has no effect. I do not think we have another opportunity to fix this problem. Given the fractionation, if we do not fix it at this point, within 8 or 10 years, this is going to become de facto communal land. On any given day, no one is going to know who owns the property. There will be hundreds of estates in probate on any given day. We have to fix it. There will be some hard decisions that have to be made. Everybody will not be happy. Any time you draw up a set of standards, draw a line, or set criteria, somebody is on the wrong side. We realize that. What we think we have to do is that we have to focus on the 99 percent of the problem. We may not be able to address the problems of the 1 percent. But it has to be fixed. Otherwise, the system is just going to collapse. I will be glad to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit my written testimony for the record. The Chairman. Without objection, your testimony will be placed in the record in its entirety. [Prepared statement of Wayne Nordwall appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you, Wayne. If you would get back to the committee as soon as you have recommendations for us, I would certainly appreciate it. Mr. Nordwall. I have to go to Nashville to work on some Cobell issues, but we will fax a copy of the bill back to our Committee and start getting some comments for you. The Chairman. Thank you. I will submit questions to you in writing. We will now go to the next panel which consist of Fred Matt, chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT; Maurice Lyons, chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, CA; Lisa Oshiro, directing attorney, California Indian Legal Services, Washington, DC; and Austin Nunez, chairman, Indian Land Working Group, Albuquerque, NM. As I told Mr. Nordwall, we have a very tight agenda this morning. I know that I am going to have to leave. If another Senator is here, we will let him go ahead and chair the hearing. If we do not finish before I have to leave, I am going to ask staff to finish chairing the hearing. Let us start in the order that I mentioned your name. Fred, go ahead. STATEMENT OF FRED MATT, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES, PABLO, MT Mr. Matt. Chairman Campbell, with what you have said, I will be as brief as I can. My name is Fred Matt. I am the chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation. On behalf of our tribal council, I am pleased to provide testimony regarding the substitute bill for S. 550 entitled, ``American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003.'' I will summarize the most important points of my testimony. Before I get into my comments, I would like to say, Chairman Campbell, that I ran into a good friend of yours a couple of days ago, Doug Allard. I would not be a very popular person if I did not say hi and send his regards. I saw him the other day at one of the most popular gathering places that we have in Western Montana, WalMart. The Chairman. Tell him hello for me. When I had a life, I was a jeweler and I made his wedding rings. He might have told you that. Mr. Matt. He just went through cancer surgery. He is recovering very well. He looked very good. I would like to send his regards. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Matt. We just hosted the 13th annual Indian Land Working Group Conference in Flathead. We are pleased that David Mullin was there from your staff on behalf of the committee. The conference was a great success. The tribes appreciate the efforts this committee and the staff in attempting to correct the fractionated interest problems of Indian land ownership, while also endeavoring to retain the trust status of property on reservations. We support the objectives of the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, ILCA, and recognize that some amendments are necessary to clarify this complex legislation. Foremost, we encourage the committee to seek enactment of these amendments prior to the Secretary's certification of notices as required by ILCA which triggers the 1-year effective date. The Flathead Reservation was created in 1855 by the Treaty of Hellgate. CSKT ceded over 22 million acres of tribal homelands and retained 1.3 million acres located in Northwestern Montana. We have always been, and remain, a part of that land. Initially we were successful opposing the General Allotment Act of 1887. However, competition for the land from outside business and political interests forced the passage of the Flathead Allotment Act in 1904. Pursuant to that act and others, a total of 3,380 allotments were made to individual Indians. More devastating to their tribal self-governance and the economic base was the opening of the reservation to homesteading. The allotment era reduced tribal government ownership to approximately 30 percent of the total reservation. In 1934, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act for various reasons including the end of the devastation caused by the allotment era. We were the first tribe in the United States to organize under IRA, and one of the first tribes to begin to reacquire lost lands. We have come a long way since the 1930's, including being one of the first self-governance tribes. We have now compacted all land management functions, including land titles and records. We have also reacquired land on the Flathead Reservation to the point where nearly 70 percent of the lands are back in the hands of the tribe. We have provided land status maps with our written testimony to show what this has done to our reservation. ILCA assists our goals for land restoration. However, currently the legislation, although not certified and, therefore, not in effect right now, is having the unintended consequences of pushing Indian land owners to request fee patents for their trust property. Indian land owners are fearful that they may not be able to leave their trust property to family members. In my case, I own seven acres and a home that is in trust. My wife is a non-Indian. Some of my children are unenrolled. Some of them are enrolled members. It is a long story. I will not share that with you now. The Chairman. That is okay. That is becoming more of a common story in Indian country everywhere. Mr. Matt. If Section 207 of ILCA was effective in my situation, my wife and my unenrolled children would inherit the life estate and my enrolled child would inherit the land and the title to the home. This is not my desired outcome. The legislation needs to allow for descent of property to rightful heirs by will. In addition, if the land should acquire fee status due to inheritance by a non-Indian, I would first support the tribal option to keep the property in trust. It is the same option tribes exercise when a land owner now requests a fee patent by an application. Furthermore, if the Indian land owner does not make a will, the stricter rules of inheritance should apply. However, Indian land owners need the ability to estate plan. Again, we need to balance our membership's needs with our self-governance. S. 550 attempts to provide that balance. The potential of Indian land owners on our Reservation who feel forced to prematurely transfer their interest from trust to fee status, poses a threat to our self-governance and tribal jurisdiction. Next, we need to know the definition of Indian. This legislation is an opportunity to clarify the definition. We believe that it would be best to use the definition contained in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. However, if S. 550 should broaden the definition of Indian, the legislation should also recognize the tribe's right to restrict the inheritance through an enactment of the tribal probate code. S. 550 is an opportunity to establish the framework for probate reform and still allow tribes to enact a probate code of their own. Last, CSKT needs access to acquisition funds for consolidating fractionated interests. The BIA has interpreted the pilot acquisition program, as authorized by Congress, not to apply on reservations where programs are operated by the tribes. This discrimination against tribes who utilize the Indian self-determination makes no sense. CSKT could eliminate nearly 3,000 undivided land interests with such funding. CSKT has identified 200 tracts of lands with 50 percent tribal ownership. In May 2003, CSKT submitted a proposal to the Department requesting funding in the amount of $6.5 million to complete such projects. CSKT suggests that the Committee either amend the land acquisition program so that all tribes can participate or allocate funding for tribes operating under the Self-Determination Act. In addition, when ILCA, is implemented, we will also need funding for training and for estate planning if the amendments are going to be successful. Education about fractionation is probably a key factor for our membership. Since our membership received the BIA notice to Indian land owners in August 2001, our tribal council has committed to keeping our membership informed about this issue. There are numerous items in this legislation. CSKT has addressed these in our prepared written testimony. We believe that through the combined efforts of land acquisition, probate reform, and estate planning education, we will eventually manage land fractionation on the Flathead Reservation. We look forward to working on the technical issues surrounding S. 550 and hope to provide additional comments in the future. Thank you again for allowing me to testify. I would like to submit my written testimony for the record. The Chairman. Without objection, your testimony will be placed in the record in its entirety. [Prepared statement of Fred Matt appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you, Fred. What you have talked about of leaving land to your children and descendants that they might not be enrolled is an important point. I do not know if you have read the new version of S. 550. I understand there is a section that hopefully will take care of that problem by allowing Indian people to leave the land to their direct descendant with the tribal first right-of-purchase if that descendant decides to sell it. We are floating that idea with tribes. That might be the compromise that works for you. We will now go to Chairman Lyons. Thank you for being here. STATEMENT OF MAURICE LYONS, CHAIRMAN, MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, BANNING, CA Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Chairman Campbell, and Vice Chairman Inouye for inviting Morongo to testify today. Our position is spelled out in our written statement. In addition, I would like to make a few points. Last year Chairman Campbell asked the Department of the Interior to delay implementation of the amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation Act. This was to allow Congressional review of concerns and issues that have arisen in Indian Country. To date, the Department of the Interior appears to have honored your request and we are thankful of their willingness to do so. The proposed amendments will protect our members' rights of inheritance. Because of the way the 2000 act now defines Indian, the Morongo Band is faced with having to substantially reverse or revise our membership criteria in order to make possible for some of our members to pass the interest and Trust allotments to their heirs, to their children. Arbitrarily revising our membership criteria will only cause further unfairness, divisiveness, and confusion. We should not be forced to amend our membership criteria in order to protect the right of our children to inherit family lands. The amendments to S. 550 provide a solution to the problem we have in California. I was reading a book that I think fits right in with what we are doing here today. It was about George Washington and the Seneca Indian chiefs. They were talking about the land that they had at that time. George Washington was talking to Chief Cornplanter, and Chief Cornplanter told him: ``The land we live on, our fathers received from God. They transmitted it to us for our children. We cannot part with it.'' President Washington told him: ``In keeping with the spirit, the Government will never consent to your being defrauded, but will protect all your just rights.'' That is something. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing my testimony today. Your efforts today will help the promise George Washington originally made to America's first people. I would like to submit my written testimony for the record. The Chairman. Without objection, your testimony will be placed in the record in its entirety. [Prepared statement of Maurice Lyons appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. George Washington may have had very good intentions toward Chief Cornplanter, too. It is too bad that the people who followed him did not have as good intentions, very frankly. Ms. Oshiro? Where is your office, by the way? Sacramento? Ms. Oshiro. California Indian Legal Services has offices throughout California. We also have an office here in Washington, DC, where I work. The Chairman. I see. Thank you. STATEMENT OF LISA OSHIRO, DIRECTING ATTORNEY, CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. Oshiro. Thank you, Chairman Campbell, for inviting California Indian Legal Services to testify before you on S. 550. We come to you wearing various hats. First, California Indian Legal Services represents tribes and individuals throughout the State of California. One of our primary purposes is to protect the very limited and precious trust and restricted lands in California. S. 550, as Chairman Lyons has said, includes some amendments to the definition of Indian that are very critical. I want to point out that there is a specific definition for California Indians that is very important because of the status of some of our tribes that were terminated by acts of Congress and have not yet been restored. Congress has, through various acts, allotted lands on the public domain and national forests that those members would like to continue to pass on to their descendants. They need to be recognized as Indians, although they are not members of a federally recognized tribe. The broader definitions under S. 550 are helpful all throughout Indian Country. We applaud your efforts in amending that. I also come here wearing the hat of one of the participants on the S. 550 Task Force. California Indian Legal Services came together with the National Congress of American Indians, the Indian Land Working Group, and various tribal representatives last November in support of your bill, S. 1340, as we were trying to amend that and get that passed. At that time, we were specifically addressing the definition of Indian. When you introduced S. 550 in March, we brought those people together, as well as additional advocates and representatives from throughout Indian Country. We have a very long distribution list. We have been one of the primary organizers of this informal S. 550 Task Force. We have been very appreciative of the participation of representatives from the Department of the Interior, from your staff, and from Indian tribes, Indian organizations, and Indian land owner associations. We have come together to try to address this very difficult and complex problem where we know that we had to make some tough decisions. As Wayne Nordwall was pointing out, we are not able to reach consensus on everything. Not everyone can have their ideal bill. But we have been engaged in many discussions and deliberations about what we need to do to aggressively address this problem that is pervasive throughout Indian country. It poses a problem to the productive use of these lands, as our elders want to put these lands that they have fought so long and hard to protect to productive use for their current generation and for future generations. We have been very happy to be participating with this informal S. 550 Task Force to bring together the collective knowledge, experience, wisdom, resources, and vision of all of these groups. We need a solution, and we need that solution now. We recognize the problems that the Department of the Interior has in managing these highly fractionated parcels. We are happy to really hear and echo the various provisions that were expressed in Interior's desire for and support for highly fractionated lands, partition, the Uniform Probate Code, the ability for individuals to freely devise their interests. It would also provide estate planning services. That is where I switch to my next hat. In providing education and estate planning services throughout Indian country, we are encouraging Interior to also consider utilizing the services of Indian Legal Services throughout the country, which has long been recognized as the most effective and efficient model for the delivery of quality legal services throughout Indian country. There are programs, such as in the State of Montana, that do not receive sufficient funding to provide this type of estate planning services. This is another measure to address fractionation and promote consolidation in individual estate planning and family estate planning, to be able to provide that education and legal services to our communities. It also provides the confidential setting as well as other protections of the attorney/client relationship. Before closing, I would like to thank you for your bill and for the commitment of your staff and for their availability, accessibility, and their participation in all of our meetings and discussions. This has been, as some people have pointed out, rather historic for all of these different interests to come together and work collaboratively and make those hard decisions. In conclusion, we look forward to continuing our work with you in the coming days and weeks. There is an urgent need to pass this bill, S. 550, before the 2000 amendments are put into effect. We are doing this work because we must honor--and we would like to honor--the elders and their ancestors who have fought so long and hard to protect these precious lands so that they can rest with the comfort and the assurance that they can pass these lands on to their children and future generations, to continue to protect them, as well as to consolidate them, and put them to productive use. Thank you. I would like to submit my written testimony for the record. The Chairman. Without objection, your testimony will be placed in the record in its entirety. [Prepared statement of Lisa Oshiro appears in apendix.] The Chairman. Thank you for the nice compliment of the staff. They have worked very hard on this bill. They work hard on all bills, but they worked particularly hard on this bill. You certainly brought up the difficulty, the complications, about identifying who is Indian anymore. I can tell you that 50 years ago it was easier. The community was small. You tended to know families or you knew how it was as the community grew. There was intermarriage. More and more people are being reinstated as Federally-recognized tribes. I cannot tell. If they tell me they are, I take their word for it. It is getting more and more difficult all the time to define who is Indian, particularly when each tribe sets their own criteria. Thank you. Mr. Nunez, you are the chairman of the Indian Land Working Group from Albuquerque; is that correct? Mr. Nunez. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Please go ahead. STATEMENT OF AUSTIN NUNEZ, CHAIRMAN, INDIAN LAND WORKING GROUP, SAN XAVIER DISTRICT, TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION Mr. Nunez. Thank you very much, Chairman Campbell. The Indian Land Working Group thanks the committee for its invitation to appear and provide testimony concerning the proposed amendments of the Indian Land Consolidation Act. I would like to state at the outset that we are very pleased with the changes that are contained in your bill. We look forward to its passage. I would like to make some additional comments from my prepared statement. ILWG supports the implementation of a steady, long-term, adequately funded program of tribal and individual consolidation and acquisition of fractional interests to avoid loss of trust status of allotted lands; adequate land owner access to information about their lands; elimination of experimental estates; and land that have no foundation and no law; amendments that are written in a style comprehensible to the users; and true consultation with interests directly affected by trust reform measures. ILWG further supports the ability of land owners to engage in owner management of parcels, if all owners agree; and a well thought-out and carefully structured family and private trust pilot project that protects against overreaching by third parties and preserves trust status; secretarially-maintained recording system for tribal inheritance codes which are encouraged under ILCA; and the establishment of missing persons investigation systems with appropriate unclaimed property provisions tailored for small accounts and possibly smaller highly fractionated land interests. In conclusion, ILWG suggests that S. 550 substitutes be streamlined to enact those provisions that are critical to repairing the problems created by ILCA 2000, and the numerous provisions about which there is general consensus. Thank you. I would like to submit my written testimony for the record. The Chairman. Without objection, your testimony will be placed in the record in its entirety. [Prepared statement of Austin Nunez appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you, I appreciate your comments. I am going to submit all of my questions to be answered in writing, if you would. Senator Inouye will probably do the same thing. Without objection, so ordered. We will keep the record open for 2 weeks for any additional comments that staff would ask or if you have some further recommendations of how we can make S. 1721 work. I would certainly appreciate it. Those in the audience, too, if you have any comments to submit, we would appreciate that, too. The Chairman. With that, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] ======================================================================= A P P E N D I X ---------- Additional Material Submitted for the Record ======================================================================= Prepared Statement of Maurice Lyons, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians Thank you Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman Inouye for inviting the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to provide you with our testimony concerning S. 550, the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003, a bill to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act. As you may recall, I testified before this committee in May of last year to encourage the Senate to adopt legislation to amend ILCA and I come before you today to do the same. In 2002, Chairman Campbell asked the Department of the Interior to delay implementation of certain provisions of the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000 [the act] pending further Congressional review of concerns and confusion that have arisen in Indian country about the consequences--both intended and possibly unintended of those amendments. To date, the Department appears to have honored your request and we are thankful for their willingness to do so. As I relayed to you in May of last year, the 2000 act prompted the Department to send out a series of notices to individual tribal members alerting them of expected changes to the rules of intestate succession and inheritance that will constrain the devising of interests on trust and restricted land to non-Indians. These notices had an immediate detrimental impact on our tribe's ability to plan for the future and manage our tribal lands effectively and our tribal members' ability to pass their land down to their children and grandchildren. While the Department has to date been willing to not implement the amendments from the 2000 act, we know that they are not able to defer this action forever. To this end, we encourage you to act swiftly on this matter. The Morongo Reservation is located approximately 17 miles west of Palm Springs. Our tribal membership enrollment is 1,200 and the reservation comprises approximately 33,000 acres of trust land, of which 31,115.47 acres are held in trust for the tribe, and 1,286.35 acres are held in trust for individual allottees or their heirs. We are continuing to make inquiries relative to the number of Morongo members that have an interest in trust allotments on our reservation and other reservations. We are also interested to learn how many non-Morongo members hold an interest in trust allotments on the Morongo Reservation. We at Morongo share the desire of Congress to preserve the trust status of existing allotments and other Indian lands, and we appreciate this committee's hard work in 1999 and 2000 to strike a balance in the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000 between the individual property rights and interests of allottees and the sovereign rights and interests of tribal governments. However, we now recognize unintended consequences from this legislation have come about. For example, because of the way that the 2000 act now defines ``Indian,'' the Morongo Band is faced with having to revise its own membership criteria in order to enable some of our enrolled members to pass their interests in trust allotments to their own children. Congress must understand that we do not feel revising our membership is a solution. The fact is that changing the membership is a very divisive matter for tribal governments and their members. We should not be forced to amend our membership criteria in order to protect the right of our members' children to continue having interests in their family lands. S. 550 includes a solution to the problem we face in California. Specifically, the bill protects those individuals having an interest in the ownership, devise, or descent of trust or restricted land in the State of California, as long as that person is a descendent of an Indian residing in the State of California on June 1, 1852 This will allow members of my family who may no longer be eligible for membership in the Morongo Tribe--but are most definitely American Indians--to carry on the traditions of our family on our lands. Due to the unique history of reservations and rancherias in California, this definition highly warranted. Mr. Chairman, as you know, tribes which exist today were largely cobbled together based on the geographic proximity of native people. For example, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians is made up from people who descended from Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Luiseno, Serrano and many others. These people all lived in the same area and where combined into the Morongo Indian Reservation. This situation is shared by many of the tribes located in California and is the basis for a much needed definition for those native people who live California. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and willingness to hear about the concerns of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9982.073