This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-249T entitled 'Indian Issues: Damages and Compensation for Tribes at Seven Reservations Affected by Dams on the Missouri River' which was released on November 1, 2007. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: Testimony: Before the Committee on Indian Affairs: U.S. Senate: For Release on Delivery: Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT: Thursday, November 1, 2007: Indian Issues: Damages and Compensation for Tribes at Seven Reservations Affected by Dams on the Missouri River: Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro: Director: Natural Resources and Environment: GAO-08-249T: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-08-249T, a testimony before the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate. Why GAO Did This Study: From 1946 to 1966, the government constructed five dams as flood control projects on the Missouri River in North Dakota and South Dakota. The reservoirs created behind the dams flooded portions of seven Indian reservations—Fort Berthold, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Yankton, and Santee. The tribes at these seven reservations received compensation when the dams were built as well as additional compensation over the years that followed. Since 1991, GAO has issued three reports on additional compensation claims for tribes at five reservations: * 1991—Fort Berthold and Standing Rock (GAO-06-517); * 1998—Cheyenne River (GAO/RCED-98-39); and * 2006—Crow Creek and Lower Brule (GAO-06-517). In these reports, GAO proposed that one recommended approach to providing additional compensation would be to calculate the difference between the tribe’s final asking price and the amount that was appropriated by Congress and then adjust the difference using the inflation rate and an interest rate to reflect a range of current values. This testimony is based on GAO’s three prior reports, and summarizes the damages estimated by the Department of the Interior and the compensation authorized by Congress, for dams constructed on the Missouri River. What GAO Found: The reservoirs created by the dams on the Missouri River permanently flooded over 350,000 acres of land on seven Indian reservations, ranging from over 150,000 acres flooded on the Fort Berthold reservation to less than 600 acres flooded on the Santee reservation. In addition to the valuable river bottom land that was lost, the tribes also lost any natural resources and structural improvements on the land. The natural resources lost included timber, wildlife, and native plants. The structural improvements lost included such things as homes and ranches. In some cases, entire towns were lost. In addition to the direct damages, Congress has recognized that the tribes also suffered indirect or intangible damages for the loss of assets of unknown value. These losses included spiritual ties to the lands (for example, cemeteries and tribal monuments); tribal claims to a homeland; and benefits derived from living along the Missouri River. The tribes at the seven reservations that lost land due to the flood control projects on the Missouri River originally received compensation for their damages between 1947 and 1962, and they subsequently requested and received additional compensation between 1992 and 2002. For the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the past, the original compensation was based on detailed assessments by the U.S. government and the tribes of the damages caused by the dams and, in some cases, protracted settlement negotiations. The U.S. government and the tribes were ultimately unable to reach settlement agreements, and Congress decided the compensation amounts. In each case, the original compensation authorized was less than what the tribes had requested, leading the tribes to request additional compensation. The three largest additional compensation amounts—Cheyenne River, $290.7 million in 2000; Fort Berthold, $149.2 million in 1992; and Standing Rock, $90.6 million in 1992—were all within the ranges calculated in GAO’s 1991 and 1998 reports. Congress did not ask GAO to review the methodologies used to calculate the four smaller additional compensation amounts, all less than $40 million, before enacting the bills in 1996 (Crow Creek), 1997 (Lower Brule), and 2002 (Yankton and Santee). The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes were authorized additional compensation commensurate, on a per- acre basis, with the additional compensation provided to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in 1992. Similarly, the additional compensation authorized in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes was also partially based on a per-acre calculation. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on [hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-249T]. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. [End of section] Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on reviewing the additional compensation claims by tribes at seven Indian reservations for lands taken by flood control projects on the Missouri River. As you know, between 1946 and 1966 five dams were constructed on the Missouri River--the Garrison Dam in North Dakota, and the Oahe, Fort Randall, Big Bend, and Gavins Point Dams in South Dakota--that damaged seven reservations. The reservoirs created behind the dams permanently flooded portions of the Fort Berthold, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Yankton, and Santee reservations. While the dams were being constructed, Congress enacted a number of laws that authorized payments to the tribes residing on the affected reservations as compensation for the damages caused by the dams. However, beginning in the 1980s, some of these tribes began requesting additional compensation. As part of their pursuit of additional compensation, the tribes generally hired consultants to develop economic analyses or perform other calculations to form the basis for their requests for additional compensation. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Congress responded to these requests for additional compensation by establishing development trust funds for the tribes at each of the seven reservations.[Footnote 1] However, today, more than 45 years after the last original compensation bill was enacted and almost 5 years after the last additional compensation bill was enacted, lingering questions remain about various aspects of the tribes' compensation. Most notably, questions have been raised about whether the tribes have been adequately compensated for the damages they sustained and whether they have been treated consistently. For example, two bills pending in the 110th Congress, H.R. 155 and S. 160, would provide the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes with a third round of compensation totaling an additional $132.2 million.[Footnote 2] Specifically, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe would receive an additional $41.7 million over and above the $27.5 million in additional compensation authorized in 1996 (unadjusted for inflation) and the Lower Brule Sioux tribe would receive an additional $90.5 million over and above the $39.3 million in additional compensation authorized in 1997 (unadjusted for inflation). Also, pending in the 110th Congress is the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2007, H.R. 487.[Footnote 3] This bill would make a number of amendments to the 2000 act that authorized additional compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, including allowing individual tribal members to be eligible for payments and changing how the trust fund is capitalized and invested. Since 1991, we have issued three reports on additional compensation claims for tribes at five reservations: (1) in May 1991 we reported on claims by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe;[Footnote 4] (2) in January 1998 we reported on the claim by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;[Footnote 5] and (3) in May 2006 we reported on the most recent additional compensation claims by the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes.[Footnote 6] In each report, we raised questions about the approach and calculations used in developing the tribes' additional compensation claims, and, as an alternative we calculated a range of possible additional compensation for Congress to consider should it determine that additional compensation was warranted. In addition, we testified in April 1991 on our work related to our first report and more recently, we testified on June 14, 2006, on our May 2006 report.[Footnote 7] Our testimony today is drawn from our three prior reports and summarizes the damages incurred, and the compensation received, for dams constructed on the Missouri River. We compiled information from our three prior reports to prepare this testimony. In reviewing the additional compensation claims for the tribes at the five reservations covered by our prior reports, we met the tribes' consultants to discuss the damages caused by the dams and the analysis that was the basis for the tribes' additional compensation claims. We also reviewed other pertinent information regarding the economic condition of the tribes at the time the land was acquired, including reports prepared by the Department of the Interior. In addition, for our 1998 and 2006 reports, in order to ensure that we obtained and reviewed all relevant data, we conducted a literature search for congressional, agency, and tribal documents at the National Archives and the Department of the Interior's library. We used original documents to learn about the tribes' settlement negotiations process and to identify the appraised land prices and various proposed settlement amounts. As a result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this testimony. We also met with representatives of the Cheyenne River Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, and the Lower Brule Sioux tribes. Our three prior reports, on which this testimony is based, were prepared in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In summary, * The reservoirs created by the dams on the Missouri River permanently flooded over 350,000 acres of land on seven Indian reservations. Two reservations lost more than 100,000 acres while the remaining five reservations each lost less than 56,000 acres. In addition to the valuable river bottom land that was lost, the tribes also lost any natural resources and structural improvements on the land. The natural resources lost included timber, wildlife, and native plants and berries. For example, the Crow Creek reservation lost 94 percent of its timberland and the Fort Berthold reservation lost 100 percent of its irrigable land. The structural improvements lost included such things as homes and ranches. In some cases, entire towns were lost. In addition to the direct damages, Congress has recognized that the tribes also suffered indirect or intangible damages for the loss of assets of unknown value. These losses included spiritual ties to the lands (for example, cemeteries and tribal monuments); tribal claims to a homeland; and benefits derived from living along the Missouri River. * The tribes at the seven reservations that lost land due to the flood control projects on the Missouri River originally received compensation for their damages between 1947 and 1962 and they subsequently requested and received additional compensation between 1992 and 2002. For the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the past, the original compensation was based on detailed assessments by the U.S. government and the tribes of the damages caused by the dams and, in some cases, protracted settlement negotiations. For example, the settlement negotiations for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes involved two dams and stretched over about 9 years, from 1953 through the enactment of their settlement legislation for the Big Bend Dam in 1962. The U.S. government and the tribes were ultimately unable to reach settlement agreements and Congress decided the compensation amounts. In each case, the original compensation provided was less than what the tribes had requested, leading the tribes to request additional compensation. The three largest additional compensation amounts-- Cheyenne River, $290.7 million in 2000; Fort Berthold, $149.2 million in 1992; and Standing Rock, $90.6 million in 1992--were all within the ranges we calculated in our 1991 and 1998 reports. Congress did not ask us to review the methodologies used to calculate the four smaller additional compensation amounts, all less than $40 million, before enacting the bills in 1996 (Crow Creek), 1997 (Lower Brule), and 2002 (Yankton and Santee). The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes were authorized additional compensation commensurate, on a per-acre basis, with the additional compensation provided to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in 1992. Similarly, the additional compensation authorized in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes was also partially based on per-acre calculation. In addition to the per-acre calculation, an adjustment was made for these two tribes to provide an amount for severance damages and rehabilitation that was not included in their original compensation. Background: The Flood Control Act of 1944 established a comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes, such as hydroelectric power production, in the Missouri River Basin.[Footnote 8] The Pick-Sloan Plan--a joint water development program designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation--included the construction of five dams on the Missouri River, including the Garrison Dam in North Dakota, and the Oahe, Fort Randall, Big Bend, and Gavins Point Dams in South Dakota (see fig. 1). The dams were constructed during a 20-year period from 1946 to 1966. Figure 1: Dams and Reservations on the Missouri River: [See PDF for image] This figure is a map of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Northern Nebraska, depicting the following dams and reservations on the Missouri River: Dams: Garrison Dam, North Dakota; Oahe Dam, South Dakota; Big Bend Dam, South Dakota; Fort Randall Dam, South Dakota; Gavins Point Dam, border of South Dakota and Nebraska. Reservations: Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Standing Rock reservation, North and South Dakota; Cheyenne River reservation, South Dakota; Lower Brule reservation, South Dakota; Yankton reservation, South Dakota; Santee reservation, Nebraska. Sources: The National Atlas of the United States of America and Map Resources. [End of figure] For tribes at five of the seven reservations, Congress asked us to review the additional compensation proposals developed by tribal consultants. Our reviews for tribes at three reservations--Fort Berthold, Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River--were conducted before Congress authorized their additional compensation. In 1991, we reported on the additional compensation claims for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and, in 1998, we reported on the additional compensation claims for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe.[Footnote 9] More recently, we reviewed the additional compensation claims for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes were affected by the Fort Randall and Big Bend dams. The tribes received their original compensation for the damages caused by these two dams in 1958 and 1962.[Footnote 10] However, the tribes did not consider their original compensation to be sufficient, and they sought additional compensation to address the effects of both dams. As a result, in 1996 and 1997, Congress authorized additional compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux and the Lower Brule Sioux tribes, respectively.[Footnote 11] In 2003, the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes hired a consultant to determine if they were due additional compensation based on the method we proposed in our 1991 and 1998 reports. As a result of the consultant's analysis, the two tribes are currently seeking a third round of compensation. In our 2006 report we assessed whether the tribes' consultant followed the approach in our prior reports in calculating the compensation for Congress to consider in determining whether additional compensation was warranted for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes.[Footnote 12] Damages Caused to the Tribes at Seven Reservations as a Result of Dams on the Missouri River: The reservoirs created by the dams on the Missouri River permanently flooded over 350,000 acres of land on seven reservations, ranging from over 150,000 acres flooded on the Fort Berthold Reservation to less than 600 acres flooded on the Santee Reservation (see table 1). In addition to the valuable river bottom land that was lost, the tribes lost any natural resources and structural improvements on the land. The natural resources lost included timber, wildlife, and native plants and berries. The structural improvements lost included such things as homes and ranches. In some cases, entire towns were lost. Table 1: Acreage Flooded on Seven Reservations by Dams on the Missouri River: Reservation: Fort Berthold; Dam: Garrison; Acreage flooded: 152,360. Reservation: Cheyenne River; Dam: Oahe; Acreage flooded: 104,420. Reservation: Standing Rock; Dam: Oahe; Acreage flooded: 55,994. Reservation: Lower Brule; Dam: Fort Randall and Big Bend; Acreage flooded: 22,296. Reservation: Crow Creek; Dam: Fort Randall and Big Bend; Acreage flooded: 15,597. Reservation: Yankton; Dam: Fort Randall; Acreage flooded: 2,851. Reservation: Santee; Dam: Gavins Point; Acreage flooded: 593. Reservation: Total; Dam: 5 dams; Acreage flooded: 354,111. Source: GAO analysis of the additional compensation acts. [End of table] The damage that each tribe sustained was unique depending, on the land that was lost, the resources and structures on the land, and the overall impact on the community. For example, the Department of the Interior estimated at one point that 78 percent of the families living on the Fort Berthold reservation, or 289 families, lived in the area that was going to be flooded, a number that was generally two to three times higher than on the other reservations. On the Crow Creek and Lower Brule reservations, the Fort Randall Dam displaced 119 families, and the Big Bend Dam displaced 89 families. In some cases the same families were displaced by both dams. The Crow Creek reservation lost 94 percent of its timberland and the Fort Berthold reservation lost 100 percent of its irrigable land. In addition to the direct damages, Congress has recognized that the tribes also suffered indirect or intangible damages for the loss of assets of unknown value. These losses included spiritual ties to the lands (for example, cemeteries and tribal monuments); tribal claims to a homeland; and benefits derived from living along the Missouri River. Compensation Provided to the Tribes on the Missouri River for the Damages Caused by the Dams: The tribes at the seven reservations that lost land due to the flood control projects on the Missouri River originally received compensation for their damages between 1947 and 1962, and they subsequently requested and received additional compensation between 1992 and 2002 (see table 2). For the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the past, the original compensation was based on detailed assessments by the U.S. government and the tribes of the damages caused by the dams and, in some cases, protracted settlement negotiations over how much the tribes should be compensated for their losses. The settlement negotiations for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe lasted about 4 years from the date settlement negotiations were authorized to the date the settlement legislation was enacted. The settlement negotiations for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes involved two dams and stretched over about 9 years, from 1953 through the enactment of their settlement legislation for the Big Bend Dam in 1962. The results of the settlement negotiations were that the U.S. government and the tribes were unable to reach an agreement. As a result, the settlements were left for Congress to decide. For each of the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the past, the original compensation provided was less than what the tribes' believed their lands were worth. Table 2: Compensation Authorized by Congress for Tribes on the Missouri River (Current year dollars in millions): Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation; Acreage lost: 152,360; Year original payment enacted: 1947 and 1949; Original payment authorized: $12.6; Year additional compensation enacted: 1992; Additional compensation authorized: $149.2. Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux; Acreage lost: 104,420; Year original payment enacted: 1954; Original payment authorized: $10.6; Year additional compensation enacted: 2000; Additional compensation authorized: $290.7. Tribe: Standing Rock Sioux; Acreage lost: 55,994; Year original payment enacted: 1958; Original payment authorized: $12.3; Year additional compensation enacted: 1992; Additional compensation authorized: $90.6. Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux; Acreage lost: 22,296; Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; Original payment authorized: $4.3; Year additional compensation enacted: 1997; Additional compensation authorized: $39.3. Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux; Acreage lost: 15,597; Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; Original payment authorized: $5.9; Year additional compensation enacted: 1996; Additional compensation authorized: $27.5. Tribe: Yankton Sioux; Acreage lost: 2,851; Year original payment enacted: 1952 and 1954; Original payment authorized: $0.2; Year additional compensation enacted: 2002; Additional compensation authorized: $23.0. Tribe: Santee Sioux; Acreage lost: 593; Year original payment enacted: 1958; Original payment authorized: $0.05; Year additional compensation enacted: 2002; Additional compensation authorized: $4.8. Source: GAO analysis of the compensation acts. Note: The dollar amounts in this table are generally from different years and they should not be added together or compared without first making adjustments for changes in the purchasing power of money over time. [End of table] During our prior reviews, we have recognized the problems with the original settlement negotiations, namely that the tribes may have been at a disadvantage during the negotiations and that they were not willing sellers of their land. We also recognized the inherit difficulties with trying to perform new economic analyses on the damages the tribes sustained 50 years after the fact. In our 1991 and 1998 reports, for the tribes at three reservations, we found the economic analyses used to justify their additional compensation claims to be unreliable, and we suggested that the Congress not rely on them as a basis for providing the tribes with additional compensation. Instead, we suggested that if Congress determined that additional compensation was warranted, it could determine the amount of compensation by calculating the difference between the tribe's final settlement proposal (referred to in our 2006 report as the tribe's "final asking price") and the amount of compensation Congress originally authorized the tribes. We used the inflation rate and an interest rate to adjust the difference to reflect a range of current values, using the inflation rate for the lower end of the range and the interest rate for the higher end. Using this approach, we calculated how much additional compensation it would take today to make up for the difference between the tribes' final asking prices and the original compensation provided. The three largest additional compensation payments--Cheyenne River, $290.7 million in 2000; Fort Berthold, $149.2 million in 1992; and Standing Rock, $90.6 million in 1992--were all within the ranges we calculated. The four smaller additional compensation payments were calculated using a different approach. We were not asked by Congress to review the additional compensation claims for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes in the 1990s when they received their additional compensation. The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes did not base their additional compensation claims in the 1990s, on an economic analysis as the tribes did for the three other reservations that we reviewed. Rather, the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes' consultant asserted that since the tribes suffered the same type of damages as the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, they should be provided with additional compensation commensurate, on a per-acre basis, with the additional compensation provided to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in 1992.[Footnote 13] In our 2006 report, where we reviewed the additional compensation claims by the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, we found that the additional compensation provided to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe in 1996 was slightly above the range we calculated and the additional compensation provided to the Lower Brule Sioux tribe in 1997 was within the range we calculated. The additional compensation dollar ranges we calculated for the tribes at five reservations covered in our three prior reports are summarized in figure 2. (The dollar amounts in figure 2 are generally from different years and they should not be added together or compared without first making adjustments for changes in the purchasing power of money over time.) Figure 2: GAO's Estimated Range of Additional Compensation Versus the Additional Compensation Authorized for Five Tribes Since 1992 9dollars in millions): [See PDF for image] This graph is a horizontal line graph depicting GAO's Estimated Range of Additional Compensation Versus the Additional Compensation Authorized for Five Tribes Since 1992. The horizontal axis of the graph represents dollars in millions from 0 to 300. The following data is depicted: Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (GAO range in 1990 dollars); Compensation range: 51.8 to 149.2 (Additional compensation authorized in Pub L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992)). Tribe: Standing Rock Sioux (GAO range in 1990 dollars); Compensation range: 64.5 to 170.0 (90.6 - Additional compensation authorized in Pub L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992). Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux (GAO range in 1990 dollars); Compensation range: 78.2 to 290.7 (Additional compensation authorized in Pub L. No. 106-511, title I, 114 Stat. 2365 (2000)). Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux: (GAO range in 1990 dollars); Compensation range: 6.5 to 21.4 (27.5 - Additional compensation authorized in Pub L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996)). Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux: (GAO range in 1990 dollars); Compensation range: 12.2 to 40.9 (39.3 - Additional compensation authorized in Pub L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997)). Source: GAO. The additional compensation authorized in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes was also partially based on a per-acre calculation. Congress followed a two-part calculation in authorizing additional compensation for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes. The first part involved taking the additional compensation provided to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in 1997, on a per-acre basis ($1,763), and multiplying that times the acreage the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes lost (Yankton Sioux, $1,763 × 2,851.4 acres = $5.027 million; Santee Sioux, $1,763 × 593.1 acres = $1.046 million). The second part of the calculation involved multiplying the results of the first part by 4.58 to add an amount for severance damages and rehabilitation (Yankton Sioux, $5.027 million × 4.58 = $23.02 million; Santee Sioux, $1.046 million × 4.58 = $4.79 million).[Footnote 14] We have not performed any reviews of the additional compensation claims for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes. Rehabilitation funds had been provided to tribes on four of the seven reservations as part of their original compensation in the 1950s and 1960s (see table 3). While rehabilitation was a significant component of the original compensation package for four tribes, we believe it should be considered separately from the comparison for damages because rehabilitation was not directly related to the damage caused by the dams. Funding for rehabilitation, which gained support in the late- 1940s, was meant to improve the tribes' social and economic development and prepare some of the tribes for the termination of federal supervision.[Footnote 15] From the late-1940s through the early-1960s, Congress considered several bills that would have provided individual tribes with rehabilitation funding. For example, between 1949 and 1950, the House passed seven bills for tribes totaling more than $47 million in authorizations for rehabilitation funding, and considered other bills, one of which would have provided $50 million to several Sioux tribes, including Crow Creek and Lower Brule. Owing to opposition from tribal groups, the termination policy began to lose support with Congress in the late 1950s, and rehabilitation funding for individual tribes during this time was most often authorized by Congress in association with compensation bills for dam projects on the Missouri River. However, the granting of rehabilitation funding for these tribes was inconsistent. Some tribes did not receive rehabilitation funding along with compensation for damages, while others did. Table 3: Rehabilitation Payments Authorized by Congress for Tribes on the Missouri River (Current year dollars in millions): Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation; Year original payment enacted: 1947 and 1949; Original payment authorized: $12.6; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $0; Percentage: 0%. Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux; Year original payment enacted: 1954; Original payment authorized: $10.6; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $5.2[A]; Percentage: 49%. Tribe: Standing Rock Sioux; Year original payment enacted: 1958; Original payment authorized: $12.3; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $7.0[A]; Percentage: 57%. Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux; Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; Original payment authorized: $4.3; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $1.9; Percentage: 45%. Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux; Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; Original payment authorized: $5.9; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $3.8; Percentage: 64%. Tribe: Yankton Sioux; Year original payment enacted: 1952 and 1954; Original payment authorized: $0.2; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $0; Percentage: 0%. Tribe: Santee Sioux; Year original payment enacted: 1958; Original payment authorized: $0.05; Rehabilitation payment authorized: $0; Percentage: 0%. Source: GAO analysis of the compensation acts. [A] These amounts include relocation and reestablishment funds authorized for the tribes. For example, the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe was authorized $416,626 for relocating and reestablishing tribal members living in the area that was flooded. [End of table] In closing, I would caution against looking solely at the acreage lost and the authorized compensation amounts to try and determine if the tribes were treated consistently. Such comparisons have led to perceived inequities between the tribes. For example, questions could be asked such as, Why was the original compensation for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe almost as much at the original compensation for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation when the Fort Berthold reservation lost three times as much land? or Why was the additional compensation provided to the Yankton Sioux tribe almost as much as the additional compensation provided to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe when the Crow Creek reservation lost more than five times as much land? The type of land lost, the resources on the land, the structures on the land, the settlement negotiations, the compensation bills, and the dates when compensation was provided, has varied by tribe. Looking at just the total compensation amounts masks the underlying differences in each of the compensation bills. Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have at this time. Contact and Acknowledgments: For further information, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro on (202) 512- 3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony and our 2006 additional compensation report are Greg Carroll, Tim Guinane, Susanna Kuebler, Jeffery D. Malcolm, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] Fort Berthold and Standing Rock, Pub. L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992); Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996); Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997); Cheyenne River, Pub. L. No. 106-511, title I, 114 Stat. 2365 (2000); and Yankton and Santee, Pub. L. No. 107-331, title II, 116 Stat. 2834, 2838 (2002). [2] Bills were also introduced in the 108th and 109th Congresses that would have provided the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes with a third round of compensation. See S. 1530, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 4949, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 109, 109th Cong. (2005); and S. 374, 109th Cong. (2005). [3] Similar versions of this bill were introduced in the 109th Congress. See H.R. 3558, 109th Cong. (2005); and S. 1535, 109th Cong. (2005). [4] GAO, Indian Issues: Compensation Claims Analyses Overstate Economic Losses, GAO/RCED-91-77 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1991). [5] GAO, Indian Issues: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's Additional Compensation Claim for the Oahe Dam, GAO/RCED-98-39 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998). [6] GAO, Indian Issues: Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes' Additional Compensation Claims, GAO-06-517 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006). [7] GAO, Indian Issues: GAO's Assessment of Economic Analyses of Fort Berthold and Standing Rock Reservations' Compensation Claims, GAO/T- RCED-91-30 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 1991); and Indians' Additional Compensation Claims: Calculations for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes Differ from Approach Used in Prior GAO Reports, GAO- 06-849T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2006). [8] Pub. L. No. 78-534, 59 Stat. 887 (1944). [9] GAO/RCED-91-77 and GAO/RCED-98-39. [10] Fort Randall Dam: Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 85-916, 72 Stat. 1766 (1958); and Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 85-923, 72 Stat. 1773 (1958). Big Bend Dam: Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 87-735, 76 Stat. 704 (1962); and Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 87-734, 76 Stat. 698 (1962). [11] Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996); and Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997). [12] GAO-06-517. [13] We proposed in our 1991 report that Congress consider a range of additional compensation of $64.5 million to $170 million for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In 1992, Congress authorized payment to the tribe of $90.6 million. According to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe's consultant, the additional compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe was calculated by adding an adjustment factor to the Standing Rock per- acre amount of $1,618--to take into account that a greater percentage of the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation was taken--and then multiplying this figure ($1,763.16) by 15,597 acres. Using this formula, the Congress authorized an additional compensation payment to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe of $27.5 million in 1996. Similarly, using the same $1,763.16 per-acre figure (multiplied by 22,296 acres), the Congress authorized an additional compensation payment to the Lower Brule Sioux tribe of $39.3 million in 1997. [14] See S. Rep. No. 107-214 at 4 (2002). The $23.0 million and $4.8 million in additional compensation authorized in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes, respectively, is significantly less than the $34.3 million and $8.1 million originally proposed as additional compensation for these two tribes in 1999. See H.R. 2671, 106th Cong. (1999); and S. 1148, 106th Cong. (1999). For an explanation of how these higher dollar amounts were calculated see S. Rep. No. 106-367 at 7-8 (2000). [15] The policy of termination, which was initiated in the 1940s and ended in the early 1960s, was aimed at ending the U.S. government's special relationship with Indian tribes, with an ultimate goal of subjecting Indians to state and federal laws on exactly the same terms as other citizens. [End of section] GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "Subscribe to Updates." Order by Mail or Phone: The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room LM: Washington, D.C. 20548: To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000: TDD: (202) 512-2537: Fax: (202) 512-6061: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, D.C. 20548: