[Senate Hearing 109-441] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-441 SETTLEMENT OF COBELL VERSUS NORTON ======================================================================= JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POSSIBLE MECHANISMS TO SETTLE THE COBELL v. NORTON LAWSUIT __________ MARCH 1, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC __________ Serial No. 109-42 __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 26-395 WASHINGTON : 2006 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming KENT CONRAD, North Dakota GORDON SMITH, Oregon DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma Jeanne Bumpus, Majority Staff Director Sara G. Garland, Minority Staff Director ______ COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Vice Chair Islands George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado Thelma Drake, Virginia Dennis Cardoza, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Cathy McMorris, Washington Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Louie Gohmert, Texas Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Vacancy Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Statements: Bickerman, John, president, Bickerman Dispute Resolution, PLCC....................................................... 4 Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, vice chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs............... 3 Eizenstat, Stuart, former ambassador, Covington and Burling.. 7 Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., U.S. Delegate, American Samoa... 20 Frazier, Harold, chairman, Great plains Tribal Chairman's Association................................................ 28 Garcia, Joseph, president, National Congress of American Indians.................................................... 26 George, Keller, president, United South and Eastern Tribes... 27 Johnigan, Sandra K., CPA, Johnigan, P.C...................... 12 Marchand, Mike, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and First Vice President, Colville Confederated Tribes......... 25 McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs......................... 1 Pombo, Hon. Richard W., U.S. Representative from California, chairman, House Committee on Resources..................... 2 Appendix Prepared statements: Bickerman, John (with attachment)............................ 31 Eizenstat, Stuart............................................ 36 Frazier, Harold.............................................. 41 Garcia, Joseph (with attachment)............................. 45 George, Keller (with attachment)............................. 54 Johnigan, Sandra K. (with attachment)........................ 116 Marchand, Mike............................................... 134 Minthorn, Antone C., chairman, Board of Trustees, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation..... 136 Renfrew, Charles (with attachment)........................... 31 SETTLEMENT OF COBELL VERSUS NORTON ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006 U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Meeting Jointly With the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 Senate Dirksen Office Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs) presiding. Present from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs: Senators McCain and Dorgan Present from the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives: Representatives Pombo, Fortuno, Hayworth, Herseth, Inslee, Kildee, Renzi, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, and Faleomavaega. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS The Chairman. Good morning. I welcome Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall and other members of the House Committee on Resources to the Dirksen Building. I want to thank you very much for agreeing to convene this important hearing on the settlement of the Cobell v. Norton litigation, which has been the subject of the legislation being cosponsored by the chairman and ranking members in both chambers. Because of time constraints this morning imposed by the joint meeting of Congress later this morning, I would respectfully ask that opening statements be limited to chairmen and ranking members. As my colleagues know, the Prime Minister of Italy is addressing a joint session this morning. The principal purpose of this hearing is to gather views on approaches we might take in valuing the settlement of claims contemplated by S. 1439 and H.R. 4322. On our first panel, we will hear from John Bickerman, who worked as one of the two mediators in the Cobell matter during the 108th Congress; Sandra Johnigan, a forensic accountant who has a background in accounting claims; and Stuart Eizenstat, who among his other high profile positions, helped to negotiate financial settlements of class action suits with European banks and other entities involving accounts and other properties that were misappropriated, stolen or otherwise lost in the Holocaust in the years leading up to and during the Second World War. Ambassador Eizenstat's negotiations in those cases presented many of the same valuation problems that we are confronted with here today. The problems of valuing accounts of claims where documentation is either missing or has been destroyed, where critical information is several decades old, and where a thorough investigation of claims could cost many millions of dollars and take many years to complete, perhaps maybe even billions. I look forward to hearing from our second panel of witnesses, representatives of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes, and the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, and getting their views and insights on how we might approach the settlement valuation question. Because we have tight time constraints for this hearing, I am requesting all our witnesses to keep their statements to 5 minutes. Finally, I would like to mention that the staff of the Committee on Indian Affairs and House Resources Committee recently traveled to Lenexa, KS, to tour the Department of the Interior's underground Indian records repository. At significant cost, the department has been gathering an enormous volume of Indian trust and non-trust records there, logging them into a database, and storing them in a controlled environment for their long-term preservation. The department employees have contracts for about 220 people at Lenexa to index millions of documents, track thousands upon thousands of transactions in the historical accounting process involved in the Cobell litigation. Many of those transactions involve extremely small sums of money derived from tiny fractional interests in land. Surely, there is a better use for these funds in Indian country, and I look forward to working on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to resolve the litigation. Chairman Pombo, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Rahall for the hard work you have been doing on this. I think you would agree with me, this is one of the most intransigent issues that we have ever faced, particularly considering the amount of money that has been involved here, and trying to put this thing back together. It has been one of the most daunting challenges I think that we have faced. I want to express my appreciation for the bipartisan, bicameral way that we have tried to address this issue. I think that you would agree with me, as other members on both sides of the aisle do, that we have to get this thing resolved and sooner rather than later. Thank you, Chairman Pombo. If it is all right with you, after you, Senator Dorgan, and then if Congressman Rahall was here. I guess he is not here. Go ahead, please. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Senator. I want to express my appreciation to you for holding this joint committee hearing. I cannot remember the last time that the two chairmen and ranking members with jurisdiction over Indian affairs cosponsored identical bills and then held a joint hearing on them. This speaks to the magnitude of the problem that we are trying to solve, and solving it depends on a bipartisan, bicameral effort. For years, our two committees have worked steadily in holding hearings and facilitating mediation to try and bring a Cobell lawsuit to a happy conclusion. Even though we have been able to introduce settlement bills, we are not there yet. I am disappointed that mediation did not bring about a settlement. This is not through any fault of our mediators. If it were not for the work of John Bickerman and Judge Charles Renfrew, we would not have arrived where we are today. We, and indeed Indian country, owe them a debt of gratitude for the fine work they have quietly and patiently done, and continue to do, in bringing about a final and fair resolution for thousands of individual Indian account holders. Today, we are exploring the key issue that will determine the fate of the settlement bill. It is the settlement amount and how it should be distributed. Unless a miracle occurs, neither party in the lawsuit can be expected to offer an acceptable amount to fill in the space that we left blank in our bills. Filling in that blank space is our job, and today's hearing should help us in that task. If we do not do this, the case will drag through the courts as it has dragged on for the last 10 years. The class of plaintiffs suffers, and all of Indian country suffers because rightly or wrongly, scarce Federal resources meant for important tribal services are being diverted to deal with it. While it may seem unusual for Congress to mandate a settlement, this is a unique type of case because of Congress' power to settle that stems from our constitutional authority over Indian affairs. It is clear that continuing with the litigation is not in the best interests of individual Indian account holders and of the taxpayers who pay the massive litigation support costs in attorneys fees. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased we are holding this joint hearing with the distinguished roster of witnesses. I look forward to working with you and Senator Dorgan and Congressman Rahall in passing a settlement bill soon this year. Thank you. The Chairman. Senator Dorgan. STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be mercifully brief. It is interesting that we talk about the word ``trust,'' Indian trust, when we refer to these accounts. In fact, ``trust'' is an inappropriate word when we are dealing with these accounts because that trust was violated by the Federal Government. Report after report, investigation after investigation shows that the Federal Government did a miserable job in keeping the trust funds and properly accounting for those trust funds. It is not surprising to any of us, I suspect, that this litigation ensued. But the Cobell litigation, if it does continue, will eclipse almost everything. It will take years. Massive amounts of money will be spent. I am not sure what the result will be. To the extent that we can find a way to resolve this in an appropriate way and a satisfactory and a fair way, it makes sense for everybody. Senator McCain and I and the folks in the House introduced identical legislation to try to begin to address these issues, to encourage the parties to become actively involved in finding some way to reach agreement. My hope is that this hearing will advance that goal one more step. I am really appreciative of members of the House joining us here as well. The Chairman. I again would like to extend my appreciation to the members of the House who have taken the giant leap on the other side of the Capitol to join us today. We thank you very much for being here, including my friends from Arizona, New Mexico, and my old friend Dale Kildee. We would like to begin with our first set of witnesses, which is John Bickerman, the president of Bickerman Dispute Resolution; Stuart Eizenstat; and Sandra Johnigan, who is a CPA. Mr. Bickerman, we would like to begin with you. I want to thank you for your very hard work on this issue. We are here to learn the benefit of your experience and your recommendations. We thank all the witnesses for being here today. STATEMENT OF JOHN BICKERMAN, PRESIDENT, BICKERMAN DISPUTE RESOLUTION, PLCC Mr. Bickerman. Thank you. Chairman McCain, Chairman Pombo, Vice Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Rahall, members of both committees, my name is John Bickerman. I am appearing here on behalf of both myself and Judge Charles Renfrew. Judge Renfrew regrets that he could not be here today due to an unavoidable conflict. With the permission of the Chair, I would just like to read two very short paragraphs because he and I have worked on this testimony, and it is his testimony as much as mine. I want to make sure that I get his words right. So with your indulgence, I am just going to read two quick paragraphs, and then summarize the rest of my testimony. Our assignment was to engage the parties in negotiations to seek a resolution of all claims brought by plaintiffs in their class action lawsuit. We were consensually chosen by the parties. Our mission was also much broader than traditional mediation. From the outset, both the parties and congressional staff requested that we periodically report back to Congress regarding our efforts and our progress. This request was made for three reasons. First, any resolution we achieved through negotiation would likely require congressional action. Second, Congress wanted to know if either plaintiffs or defendants were behaving in a dilatory manner or otherwise negotiating in bad faith. And third and most importantly, Congress wanted to know if a resolution was impossible so that it could decide whether to take action. Indeed, in October 2004, we reported back to the then- leaders of these two committees and in fact told you that we did not think that a successful conclusion could be made. I am going to read again. We continue to believe that only congressional action can resolve this dispute for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the IIM Trust, and allow the United States to devote its resources to the traditional services it has provided Indian country. If Congress takes no action, the litigation path will take years, if not decades, to reach finality. Many deserving beneficiaries will have died in the interim. Those beneficiaries who are alive will not be made whole. We also believe that the Department of the Interior's ability to serve Indian country will be severely compromised. So much of the policy affecting Indian country seems now to be made through the prism of the Cobell litigation. We are concerned that the historically beneficial trust relationship between the Federal Government and Indian country is in jeopardy as a result of this litigation. Now, I will summarize the rest of our testimony. First, there is no dispute about liability. Courts have proven it. The plaintiffs have been successful in their efforts, and liability is just not an issue anymore. What is an issue and why we are here today is to try to value the liability that the United States has. While there is no serious question about the liability, the gulf that exists between the parties is enormous. Initially, the plaintiffs took the position that strict common law fiduciary principles ought to apply. ``If you can't show it, then you owe it.'' Based on the calculations that they initially made, that led to a conclusion that the liability of the United States was somewhere between $100 billion to $170 billion. Now, we believe that those kind of statements have created very unrealistic expectations that make this dispute even more difficult to resolve. More recently, the plaintiffs at a hearing in December suggested that a settlement demand of $27.5 billion, for settlement purposes, was a reasonable demand, based on an error rate of 20 percent, assuming that 20 percent of the funds were not paid to beneficiaries as a measure of rough justice. But again, there is no supporting data. Similarly, we think the United States' position is somewhat suspect. The department has spent considerable sums tracing the record of transactions. If you follow their testimony to its logical conclusion, you come up with a number of less than $500 million, maybe less than $100 million. So $27.5 billion on one side, and less than $500 million on the other side. That is quite a gulf. Now, if we try to analyze where the gulf is and why it exists, we believe that there are three potential sources of error. The first source of error is the money was not collected. The second source of error was the money was collected and it was deposited, but it was not properly deposited. And the third is the money was not properly disbursed. Now, let's take a look at the first issue with respect to the money not being collected. To the best of our knowledge, the administration has not really been able to take a hard and close look at this source of error. These missing funds, (or if the funds were paid late and interest was due on them,) could reflect a very, very significant amount of money. I would describe this as ``funds mismanagement.'' In the legislation there is an effort, to deal with this issue. Funds mismanagement we believe would be and ought to be covered under any settlement under title I. This is a claim that we think belongs with the general accounting claims. But we want to distinguish it from what we would describe as ``lands mismanagement.'' Lands mismanagement relates to the underlying assets--the underlying assets of an individual's property was not let out at a fair price, or a lease was not fairly acquired. That is a very individualized, particularized kind of claim, and we do not believe that it is properly part of this litigation. The plaintiffs have never asserted it was part of this litigation. No evidence has ever been brought to bear on this issue, and that those sort of claims should survive whatever you do. We believe that those kind of claims would be individual claims that would properly be brought in the Court of Claims, and as a result we think they should be able to be brought. Now, the second potential source of error is that the funds were not properly deposited, and the administration has done a good deal of analyzing that. We do not say anything more about that at this time. But I do want to talk to you about the fact that ultimately this is an arbitrary solution. There is no right number. As mediators, we are frequently asked to give a number. We often say ``based on the legal merits, one number is as good as the other.'' By way of example, I have provided at the end of the testimony a bunch of numbers. The Chairman. One number is as good as the other, $100 million or----[Laughter.] Mr. Bickerman. No; not exactly. Let me be more specific. Clearly, there is an error rate. Clearly, we know that $13 billion went through the system. Okay? The plaintiffs used a 20-percent error rate. We did some analysis and we said, ``let's assume a 20-percent error rate and an interest rate of 3 percent compounded.'' What does that lead to? And we made some assumptions. We said, most of the money, and this is an important assumption, that was paid through the system occurred from 1970 forward. Obviously, money that was paid a long time ago is much more valuable now than money paid more recently because of the compound interest effect. So if you assume that $3 billion was paid prior to 1970, and only $500 million was paid prior to World War II, which we think are reasonable assumptions, then you generate a number of $7.2 billion. If you assume an error rate of 10 percent and an interest rate of 4 percent, you come up with a $5.6-billion number. But if you move that interest rate just a point, and assume the same error rate of 10 percent and assume an interest rate of 5 percent, then the number jumps to $9.8 billion. What is the point of this? We are not recommending any of these numbers. What we are saying is the thought that we can define with precision the error rate and the interest rate, we can't, but there is a range that the committee ought to be looking at that could resolve this dispute. It is not the administration's number and it is not the plaintiffs' number, but there ought to be a number that you should be able to determine and we do not think that a lot of time spent on coming up with a methodology will improve the accuracy of a number. So our recommendation, and here I will, if I can, just read our statement again because Judge Renfrew endorses this. On behalf of Judge Renfrew and myself, we continue to offer our assistance to the committee. We believe that the prompt enactment of S. 1439 and H.R. 4322 is an imperative. It is in the best interest of the plaintiffs, of the United States, and we encourage the committee to schedule these bills for markup as soon as possible. [Prepared statement of Mr. Bickerman appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much. Ambassador Eizenstat, welcome. STATEMENT OF STUART EIZENSTAT, FORMER AMBASSADOR, COVINGTON AND BURLING Mr. Eizenstat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McCain, Senator Dorgan, Chairman Pombo, Congressman Rahall, and members of the joint committees, thank you for asking me to testify. I have been asked to testify because of my experience during the Clinton administration where, in addition to holding a series of four international positions, I was simultaneously the leader of the administration's efforts to bring belated justice to Holocaust survivors and other victims of Nazi atrocities, and to return as much as possible their confiscated property from World War II. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am in no way, underscore no way, trying to compare the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews and millions of others to the gross mistreatment of America's first residents, Native Americans. Each historical event stands on its own. But the way in which we sought to provide what I call imperfect justice to victims of the Third Reich in a series of negotiations from 1995 to 2001 have, I believe, some useful lessons on how Congress might provide justice to American Indians in the Government's mishandling of their trust fund assets. Congress has repeatedly found, in the words of the U.S. Court of Appeals, that these funds were hopelessly and ineptly managed, with the resulting chaos. And that it was not disputed that the Government failed to be a diligent trustee. A 1992 congressional report cited the Interior Department's dismal history of inaction and incompetence. Despite the very different historical origins of the Indian claims and the Holocaust claims, there are lessons from our work that may be useful as you consider your work on these two important bills. The class action Holocaust cases were brought against French and Swiss banks for Holocaust-era bank accounts never returned to their rightful owners after World War II. Class action suits were also brought against German and Austrian slave labor companies that employed slave-enforced labor; against German and Austrian and other insurance companies for unpaid insurance policies for confiscated real and personal property and artworks never returned. In each case, the class action suits were crucial in highlighting the historical wrong, but were unable to resolve it in a judicial context. In each case, the beneficiaries were dying in the Holocaust cases at the rate of 10 percent a year, while the class action litigation droned on. Indeed, our cases were founded in many instances on legal quicksand, as demonstrated by the dismissal of the two major slave labor cases by Federal courts in New Jersey. In the Cobell case, there appears to be a stronger legal argument by the plaintiffs, but the case has been batted around like a volleyball for almost a decade between the District Court and the Court of Appeals, with no benefit to the aggrieved Indians and at great cost to both sides. So let me suggest the following. First, courts are not suitable instruments for resolving historical wrongs. Class action lawyers may be able to raise a historical wrong, but are incapable of solving the problem themselves. It was only the intervention of the Clinton administration, and may I say, with the bipartisan support of the Congress, in mediating the Holocaust cases that led to our dramatic results, with $8 billion in settlements for victims, Jewish and non- Jewish alone, indeed the majority non-Jews; payment of 1.5 million slave-enforced laborers; the identification of over 20,000 Holocaust-era bank accounts; payments of thousands of life insurance policies; the return of hundreds of properties and hundreds of pieces of looted art. So I applaud all of you for your work on this legislation. Legislation is absolutely essential. There will never be a piece of legislation that will satisfy both sides, but legislation will be infinitely preferable to the endless prospect of uncertain litigation. Second, the way in which you craft the legislation bears striking similarities to the efforts we made in the Holocaust cases. Your legislation, for example, would create a global settlement fund which would be allocated among the claimants. Your concept of allocating that capped amount partly by a per capita amount and partly by a formula, taking into consideration the flow of funds through the benefiaries' IIM accounts, compared to the total throughput of all other beneficiaries, is eminently reasonable. Permit me to give you several examples from my experience. In the Swiss bank case, we capped $1.25 billion to be divided among an unknown, at that point, number of claimants at the time of settlement. We simply did not know how many people would come forward and claim bank accounts. There was a major controversy in the Cobell case about the accounting required and the costs of performing it. You may wish to note that we created a committee chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, which employed four major accounting firms and cost the Swiss banks $200 million in audit fees to get at one million accounts created in Swiss banks from 1938-45. At the time of our negotiations, indeed at the time of their conclusion, we still did not know the results of the Volcker investigation. So while it was historically useful, and indeed is now important in terms of claims, it did not help us determine how to reach the $1.25-billion settlement. We also took into account, as we have done in the insurance cases, the interest lost over the decades since the end of World War I by adding 10 times the amount in the bank accounts to the actual recovery. We came to that figure by employing an eminent economist, Henry Kaufman, who helped us determine the basis of the plus-up. In the German Holocaust labor cases, we employed a per capita concept in our capped 10 billion Deutschmark, $5 billion settlement. We estimated from records available to us that there were around 1 million surviving laborers in Europe and elsewhere from World War II. We divided that number into the capped amount we negotiated. All slave laborers, and this is a very important point on your per capita issue, all slave laborers were paid the same per capita amount, $7,500, whether they worked for 1 day, 1 year, the entire war; whether they came out healthy or wrecked for life. Likewise, forced laborers who worked under harsh, but somewhat better conditions, received $2,500, again without any individual hearings. It was impossible to have individual hearings for 1 million-plus people and determine their individual circumstances. In the Austrian labor cases, we negotiated a $400-million capped fund and allocated again on a per capita basis to forced and slave laborers. We overfunded the account to assure that each category would receive the maximum $7,500 or $2,500 figure. In the Austrian property settlement, we agreed upon a $210- million capped fund which we called the General Settlement Fund. By the way, it has just been funded 5 years later, a few weeks ago. Here again, we have an unknown number of claimants. It appears now that there will be 19,000. We agreed in our negotiations that there would be up to a $2-million payment to people whose property was taken in Austria, but that would depend on how many claims there were. It now appears with 19,000 claims, if most of these are validated, and I will get to that in a moment, that they will receive less than that $2 million. So again, there is an element of arbitrariness. That gets to my third point. We employed a concept we called ``rough justice'' in our determinations of the amount of the recoveries. As you seek to fill in the blank in your proposed global settlement amount, you might consider the same. We recognized that there was an arbitrariness to any figure. How do you place a value on the damage done 60 years after a war to a slave or forced laborer? How do you determine how much the Swiss bank should pay for their perfidy in hiding Holocaust era bank accounts for decades from their owners, even taking it into the profits of the bank? Indeed, how do you here measure the injustice to Indians who misplaced their trust in the United States? We did our best to try to come to reasonable figures, but in the end it was a case of getting the maximum for victims that the offending foreign corporations were willing to pay. It was simply a case of finding the middle ground on which the parties could agree. You have this unenviable task. There will be no figure that will satisfy both sides. You labor, as I did, with an imperfect set of historical records. Indeed, evidently the state of the trust fund accounts is abysmal. If there is to be an accounting, I believe there must be one that uses statistical analysis and not cost, as the Volcker audit did, a disproportionate amount to what is recovered. But it is far better, as you have done in your legislation, to simply forget the audit. It is not worth paying money to auditors. Let that money go to the Indians. So you should simply avoid further costly accounting on an incomplete and poorly managed set of records, some of which are destroyed or otherwise inaccessible. In coming to a number which almost certainly should be in the billions, the committee should take into account the passage of time, the lost investment opportunities, the massive negligence or worse at the Department of the Interior, and the fact that you are really returning their money, not appropriating Government money. This will have to be done for IIM beneficiaries and individual Indians, and should be done as quickly as possible because they will never be able to recover an adequate amount in the courts. You might also consider on attorneys fees what we did. In all of our agreements, we capped attorneys fees at roughly 1 percent. By the way, in the Swiss cases, some of the leading plaintiffs' attorneys donated their services. So the class action lawyers did not take a disproportionately large percentage of the ultimate recovery. Now, here for sure, the class action lawyers have spent a very long time and a tremendous amount of effort. They deserve to be compensated. I am not suggesting 1 percent is the appropriate figure here, but I do mention that is a figure that we used. Fourth, you might consider the institutions we created to administer the Holocaust funds as you consider how to administer these funds. In your legislation, there is a significant dispute, as in the case itself, over who should administer the funds. The plaintiff Indians, with their rightful suspicion of the Interior Department and to a lesser degree the Treasury Department, want the Federal District Court to administer the funds. I strongly suggest you not do that. Your legislation proposes that the Treasury Department administer the funds. There is frankly a problem in giving either Interior or Treasury such a fiduciary role, given that they are defendants in the cases and in light of their failure to live up to their fiduciary responsibility since 1887. We created administrative mechanisms. For example, in the Swiss bank case, the claims resolution tribunal functions to this very day under a Federal judge with a special master helping him. The average recovery in bank accounts, by the way, plused-up, is $100,000. In the Austrian property claims, we created administrative tribunals with three persons, one appointed by the Austrian Government, one by the United States Government, the third by the other two. In the German slave labor cases, a German controlled board makes decisions, but the U.S. Government and the plaintiffs have representation. Insurance claims are processed by an organization headed by former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger. You might consider in your legislation, establishing an independent administrative tribunal in the Indian cases. Because of the suspicion on Interior and Treasury, perhaps they could report to the Attorney General, but I understand that there is suspicion of the Justice Department here, so let me make a fresh suggestion. Because of the distrust that the plaintiffs have of all the major departments that might have a role in administration, permit me to suggest the following, and that is an independent executive branch commission. You might call it the Indian Claims Settlement Commission, which would be modeled after the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which has done things like certify 5,911 Cuban claims going back to the 1970's, but with authority to adjudicate and pay claims, like those tribunals we created in the German, Austrian, and French Holocaust cases. But avoid at all costs sending this back to the Federal courts. Sending the administration of the payments back to the courts that have already failed for a decade to resolve the matter is a prescription for further delay in doing justice to Indians. The key is to make rapid decisions in the lifetime of the majority of the claimants, the key consideration here and with aging Holocaust victims. The regimes we created that are individual claims-based, like the ICHEIC process for insurance or the Swiss Bank Claims Resolution Tribunal, are slow and laborious. It has taken more than 7 years since the Swiss bank case was settled, and more than 3 years after their tribunal was created, because it is a claim by claim enterprise. The more you can do this on a per capita basis, the more you can do rough justice; the more people will be benefited and the more rapidly. Fifth, I want to address legal certainty and constitutionality. In our cases, we created a unique statement of interest in which the U.S. Government pledged to support the defendants, the foreign corporations, in dismissing all cases on any valid legal ground and stating that there was a national security interest in having the cases dismissed, and that the negotiated settlement we reached go forward. In every single case, Federal courts have deferred to our executive branch statement of interest. As I understand your proposed bill, you will extinguish claims for mismanagement of funds, but not for improper decisions on land management. I am going to ask you to do something that is uncomfortable. Claims might still be made, I understand, as John said, relating to the mismanagement of the underlying assets. But I am sympathetic to the Department of the Interior's concern that in any settlement, if you do not wipe out all claims, all you are going to do is invite another round of suits for mismanagement of the underlying assets. As long as you are going to bite the political bullet, go ahead and bite it. Bite it once. Make a larger sum, perhaps, to settle all elements of the claim. You have ample protections built into the legislation to survive constitutional challenge. I also believe that the Department of the Interior is correct in asserting that Congress should provide clear guidance as to the amounts to which individuals are entitled, rather than leaving the decision of what individuals receive to a formula developed by the Secretary. I urge you in the strongest terms, do not leave anything to the discretion that you possibly can solve in the legislation. Make it clear. Make the formula clear so that when you set up an administrative mechanism, that administrative tribunal will have clear rules and will not have to spend years trying to develop a system themselves. Our Holocaust experience demonstrated that the more precise we could be, the fairer and speedier were the administrative tribunals for the benefit of victims. In conclusion, you are to be congratulated for embarking on a politically courageous course to rectify over 100 years of wrongs committed by our Government against individual Indians who ceded their accounts to the Department of the Interior in the expectation they would be properly managed. Your legislation broadly sets the right course. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Eizenstat appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ambassador. This has been very helpful, I think, to this committee. Don't you agree? Ms. Johnigan. STATEMENT OF SANDRA K. JOHNIGAN, CPA, JOHNIGAN, P.C. Ms. Johnigan. Thank you. I am pleased to appear before the committee. I am happy that I was requested to appear by the chairman of the committee. I am going to summarize my testimony that I have prepared, and will go through the major points of my ideas and suggestions. First of all, though, I would like to say that the basic reason that I believe I am here is that I am representing myself as a forensic accountant, a CPA. I am not a lawyer. I am not an attorney, so I will not be speaking about anything that has to do with legal issues. My background includes the recent settlement in principle of one of the tribal trust cases that is in the Court of Federal Claims, where I was the lead consultant. I am also working with the Intertribal Monitoring Association on a cooperative effort with the Government in trying to create a methodology for tribal claims settlement in the 1972-92 era. That information and background, as well as my private trust experience, informs my thinking in what I have presented today. Generally, where I want to go are the kinds of things that I would suggest if I were working with someone in terms of trying to settle this type of a claim. I am going to go through some of the same kinds of things that I believe are of interest, whether or not you are talking about creating the number in legislation or whether you are looking at the number if you were trying to settle the amount as a set of individual parties, because the number that you are going to put on the table is still going to be a number in legislation that in some level is going to have to be mutually agreed upon within Congress and yourselves as you put the legislation forward. So there are a couple of key things to me. First, what questions you asked; and second, what you basically do in terms of gaining this mutual agreement about what the process is to come to a conclusion on a number. The questions that I think are most important here to begin with are, what are you trying to settle with this legislation?; what in fact were the plaintiffs trying to resolve with the claim? In my reading of the information and my background on this, my understanding is the initial claim was for an accounting. I understand there is a dispute with regard to that, as to how that would be performed. I believe that the most important thing in terms of asking questions about what could inform the creation of a number is to make sure you understand the elements of the accounting that are in fact being considered and argued in this case. From my perspective, those are pretty simple. I believe you have heard some of that today already in terms of receipts and disbursements. That is about as simple as accounting gets. What are the receipts that came in? What are the amounts that went out? Where I think there is some confusion from reading the record I have to date read, is do we really even agree on the receipts, because the number of $13 billion has been raised a number of times in these conversations about the receipts, and that there is some agreement. Yet when I read testimony on this subject, as I read the testimony from the assistant secretary, Mr. Cason, it is my understanding that in fact the proposals that they have talked about are regarding the statistical sampling, not necessarily embracing the dollar amount of the receipts. I think part of that is because of the question that was previously raised. What are receipts beyond those that have actually come in the door? One of the questions that has been raised in the tribal cases and I believe will be raised in this case is the issue of receipts that should have been received, those moneys that should have been received, that were contracted for, but for some reason did not make it into the accounts. The other is what was previously again mentioned with regard to the asset mismanagement, that the fair value of the receipts did not come in. Those are two different kinds of receipts. I do not think those have been addressed in this discussion of the $13 billion, and I do not think that they are embraced in the statistical sampling that I have seen discussed today. So those are some of the questions. Do the parties generally agree with the $13 billion of total receipts? If so, do they agree on the timing of the receipts? If there are differences, what are the bases for the differences? Does the $13 billion really represent all claims or all amounts, or does it exclude the amount of receipts for that which should have been received, but was not collected? Are there claims for those additional receipts on fair value? Those are some of the things that have been discussed. Those are major open questions that have to be addressed, I believe, as you decide what your number should be. I am not going to go through in this discussion things that could be done with regard to developing information about what should have been received. I have some of that in my written testimony. There is a body of knowledge and approaches that are being developed to date with work on cooperative agreements in the tribal arena with regard to how to do that. That could inform this process if you have an interest in delving into that. The main thing is that there is some mutual agreement on how you would approach that if you are in fact going to calculate a number that includes that. In addition, there is another question that has to be addressed even with receipts. That is, work done to date by the U.S. Government in the statistical work appears to be generally from the 1985 period forward. It does not include the older years. Work in some manner is going to need to be done, whether it is in depth or whether it is analytical, using reports from GAO and other types of information to inform the parties, but something needs to be done to help someone understand how are you going to apply the information that has been accumulated to date, to periods where you have done no work. That is a key issue, I think, in coming up with something that would be considered a relevant and reliable number that you are, even if you are doing it somewhat arbitrarily, having some bases for. The more open question, I believe, though, however, then is disbursements. Disbursement seems to be a widely battled issue, if you want to call it a battle, with regard to whether or not you need documents; whether or not there is 20 percent of the documents that have not been collected, and therefore there is an amount that should be applied for a claim for the tribal members, or I should say the IIM accounts. The other side of that is that there is statistical work saying that documents have been found by the government in their work, but again only from 1985 forward, as far as I can tell from the work that has been done for land based accounts. So there are some questions in this whole area that I think again need to be asked. Do the plaintiffs, who then would be, as you look at this, part of who would be receiving these moneys, agree that the results of the study that have at least been done by the Government for the period that it was done, is that considered something that is acceptable? If there is some mutual agreement there, could you use that at least for the period where it was done? And second, if there is agreement or not between the parties and therefore informing you as to for the older years, if there is no information that has been created that can be carried back, then you begin to do the arbitrary type of work that we are talking about or we have talked about. I think any forensic information that is looked at over a long period of time is going to have missing documents. My background in private sector is informed by the fact that I worked on a case where the State of California and all public municipalities of the State of California had sued the Bank of America. One of the major issues in that had to do with the documents. As the court in preliminary findings in that particular case stated, you could use other means to fill the gap for those kinds of situations where you did not have the documents, but you had data that you could analytically fill the gap with. I think that is important to this type of case. So I believe in terms of looking at where you are and how you can fill the gap, I have a number of ideas that I believe could be applied. I do not believe that level of detail is appropriate for this hearing today, but I will say that in terms of finding a way to resolve a number, I think the first step is to have the statistical work prepared by the Government that has been prepared to date, be reviewed by an independent party to determine how it could be used for the current period. I think that the older periods and where there are error rates that could be created based on true problems perceived in periods during the older years where there are known error and known problems, where you create a more robust error rate for those periods. If that were applied, that would satisfy a lot who believe that the rates that are very low for the more current periods are not applicable to the older years. So bottomline, from my perspective, if you cannot have mutual agreement of the parties, when you need to have some mutual agreement among yourselves as you are presenting it to Congress as to what the bases would be a number beyond just arbitrarily picking a number from zero to 100, finding something that at least has some bases in the work that has been done to date, and also applied with regard to some of the errors and the problems that are known from the past. [Prepared statement of Ms. Johnigan appears in appendix.] Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I do want to thank all of our witnesses. We will begin the questions. The Senators had a vote on the floor, and we will begin the questions, and I will begin with the House members. I will start with Ambassador Eizenstat. In the Holocaust case that you oversaw, you talked about plusing-up some of the payment accounts at a factor of 10. How did you arrive at that? Was that, as you described it, rough justice or was that based on a formula? Mr. Eizenstat. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we only plused- up those things which were tangible, for example, policies and bank accounts. We did not try to plus-up what a worker might have made if he or she had been paid by one of the slave labor companies over a 10-year period. What we did is we retained the services of economist Henry Kaufman, and he basically took Government bond rates and then calculated what the compound interest would be over that 50- year period. So there was a solid statistical basis for that. Mr. Pombo. Do you happen to remember what that interest rate was? Mr. Eizenstat. I can get that very easily. It was somewhere around 3 percent, but I can get that. And there again, you do have the issue that has been raised by my colleagues about what time period you are talking about. So what he basically did is just took an average over that period of time. Now, interestingly for the French cases, the multiplier was 1.7 and the reason, and this provoked a great deal of controversy, the reason was that there was a massive devaluation of the French franc after the war. That was taken into account in coming to a lower multiplier figure. I will be glad to get those precise figures for you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pombo. Thank you. You also talked about including the land mismanagement claims. We have gotten different advice even from this panel in terms of that. I think in dealing with that particular issue, I would ask Mr. Bickerman, you have suggested not including that. Ambassador Eizenstat has suggested that we do include it. Can you enlighten us as to why you believe it should not be included? Mr. Bickerman. Yes; in fact if I could rely on Ambassador Eizenstat's testimony, I think it is key that you have clear criteria by which to allocate the funds that you are going to allocate. That is one of the central lessons, I think, we learned from the experience of Ambassador Eizenstat. You can do that with the fund based mismanagement. But the land based mismanagement is very particularized. Take, for example, the woman who has an oil well on her property, it has been pumping for 40 years, and she is not getting what she thinks would have been a fair return. Well, the investigation would require you to take a look at the lease that she got and the lease that other people got, and was it a fair deal that had been struck. That is very special, specific information. So if you were to come up with one gross number, it would be very hard to take that number and adequately distribute it among individuals who believe that their assets had been mismanaged. And that is the reason, I believe in trying to wrap up as much as you possibly can in a settlement, but it is for that reason that I think those claims should survive. Moreover, I think the risk of there being a class action of those type of lawsuits is very minimal. I think because they are such particularized claims, and they are claims for money damages, they have to go to the Federal Court of Claims as opposed to the Federal District Court. That is a more proper venue for them as a result. I also have a hunch that you are not going to have that many claims for mismanagement, but that is an intuition. Mr. Eizenstat. May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Pombo. Please do. Mr. Eizenstat. In our cases, the government's involved, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, France, et cetera, and their companies, wanted to know if they were paying billions of dollars, that all future claims arising out of World War II would be covered. They called it legal peace. And that was the essence of the settlement we reached. Once we arrived at the figure, the U.S. Government did everything it could to make sure that all claims arising our of World War II would be covered. Otherwise, they would have been paying billions of dollars and still be subject to some creative lawsuit. Now, I take what John says seriously, about the difference between land based claims and fund based mismanagement. But this legislative window comes once in a lifetime. Once you have gone through the trauma of dealing with this, you are not going to want to take it on again, number one. So you ought to be as inclusive as possible. No. 2, whatever settlement comes up is going to involve a tremendous amount of money. The government has I think a justifiable reason to say, okay, we want to do this, but we want to make sure that everything is included and that we do not have to spend more money on more defenses for other claims. No. 3, there is a way of dealing with the concern that John mentioned, and again we did his in our cases. We created in the property cases, again it was a capped fund, but an individualized hearing, unlike the slave labor cases where we could not possibly have individual hearings for 1.5 million people and we simply said, if you are a slave laborer and we defined it, you get $7,500; if you are a forced laborer and we defined it, you get $2,500, regardless of circumstance. For the property cases and the insurance cases, there are individualized hearings. It takes longer, but there are individualized hearings, but with a capped amount. So I think that you could have in your legislation a separate settlement amount that would be for these land based claims. Again, it would be perhaps difficult to come to any figure, but no more difficult than it will be for the fund mismanagement claims. So I think it is eminently doable. We created that system in ours. Don't end up going through all this trauma and end up with still more people going through court processes, taking years of time, everybody's expense, when you could solve everything at the same time. Mr. Pombo. In that case, you had a capped amount per individual, but you had individual hearings where whatever their claim was, they had the ability to have their day. Mr. Eizenstat. Yes; we did in some, like the Austrian property claims, which are now literally being adjudicated. The first claims are just now being heard. A $210-million cap, we said any individual who lost property could make a claim up to $2 million. The amount you get depends on the value of your claim. But in the insurance claims the insurance companies agreed that if there is a valid policy, they will pay whatever that face amount is plused-up in the way that I described. But in the German and Austrian cases there was a capped overall amount. In the Swiss bank account, of the $1.25 billion settlement, we set aside $800 million as a cap for claims on real bank accounts, no rough justice, real bank accounts, proven by evidence, but only up to that capped amount. So there are a variety of ways you can do it, but the point is you can have a capped amount as we did with the Swiss bank accounts. You could cap an amount here for these land based claims. That is, I think, still far fairer to the Indian plaintiffs than going through this whole legislative trauma and then telling them, well, on those claims, go to the Court of Claims or go back to Federal court and start all over again. Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I am going to turn this back over to Senator McCain. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Pombo. My colleagues came a long way, so I will be very brief in my questions. Mr. Bickerman, you don't believe there is going to be a negotiated settlement. Right? Mr. Bickerman. Never. The Chairman. Mr. Eizenstat, from your experience with this? Mr. Eizenstat. I have no reason to think, given the mediation that has been done, that there will ever be one, and legislation is the only reasonable outcome. The Chairman. Do you agree with that, Ms. Johnigan? Ms. Johnigan. Yes; I do. The Chairman. So Mr. Bickerman, as I understand it, Mr. Eizenstat has come up with three I think strong recommendations, and I would like your views on them. One is the establishment of an independent administrative tribunal; another one is the extinguish claims for mismanagement of funds, and additionally for improper decisions on land management; and third, that Congress should provide clear guidance as to the amounts to which individuals are entitled, rather than leaving the decision of what individuals receive to a formula developed by the Secretary; Congress shall craft a distribution method with as much clarity and direction as possible. Do you agree with all three of those recommendations of Mr. Eizenstat? Mr. Bickerman. We have just had a little colloquy on the land mismanagement, and I am not totally in Ambassador Eizenstat's court, but I am beginning to be convinced that if there was enough money, we could come to a conclusion. Maybe that is an alternative way to deal with it. As to the other two issues, I think they are excellent suggestions. I think the clarity of the criteria is very key, so that the money can get distributed and distributed quickly. The Chairman. And you also agree that whatever we come up with, and Chairman Pombo and I do intend, after 10 years, I believe it has been 10 years now, or 12, I am not sure, to come up with legislation and we will be roundly criticized by all participants. Mr. Bickerman. I can guarantee you will be roundly criticized, but I think the right and courageous thing to do is to pick a number and try to end this. Mr. Eizenstat. Tell them to read Bleak House by Charles Dickens. [Laughter.] Jaundra v. Jaundra, and that will be your best defense. The Chairman. They did a magnificent job on Masterpiece Theater, in case you missed that. I want to thank you all very much. Again, I want to say to everyone that reads the record of this that I intend to work closely with Congressman Pombo and the House so that we can come up with a solution which we are fully aware will cause us some difficulties, but this issue has to be brought to some kind of closure. I want to thank again Chairman Pombo, as well as my friend Byron Dorgan and Mr. Rahall for their cooperation. This has to be a bipartisan solution, obviously. Thank you, Chairman Pombo. Congressman Udall. Mr. T. Udall. Thank you, Chairman McCain. Thank you for holding this very important hearing on a matter that is absolutely vital to tribal members. I appreciate all of the panel members and your testimony. I view this as excellent testimony. I think it truly does shed light on the issue that is before us. Ambassador Eizenstat, one issue similar in the Holocaust cases and the Cobell case is the uncertainty of the exact number of account holders and where they or their heirs reside. Many potential American Indian beneficiaries live in desolate areas and extreme poverty. Do you have any suggestion on how we might be able to find people once the Bureau of Indian Affairs files are exhausted? Did you mandate advertising or other avenues to get the word out? Mr. Eizenstat. Thank you. First of all, I have to say there was another Udall with whom I used to testify. It is a sign of my age, I suppose. Yes, what we did was particularly for the Swiss bank cases, and for the insurance cases, we did a massive notification process. We used the news media. We put full page ads in major newspapers, radio advertisements. We did a full blown media effort to try to reach account holders. Now, in addition, we had the advantage, particularly in the bank and insurance cases, of having names assigned to accounts, so we actually created a website with those names. Some, by the way, were misspelled or had German or Swiss spellings, but still we did create a website with the names we knew existed, and advertised that website. That is also a very useful way of presumably, even with the sad state of the records here, there must be some record of individual account holders or trust fund holders. Mr. T. Udall. Thank you. Just one more question, Ambassador Eizenstat. Our committees have been working with the parties of the Cobell lawsuit and the mediators, as you are aware. As our mediators can attest, the sides in this dispute have become bitter enemies, with the debate often taking unhealthy and unhelpful turns. We have been told time and time again that the animosity between the sides is the worst that veteran lawyers and mediators have ever seen. I am guessing that at that time you had persons who were taking too hard a line or generally not working in good faith to settle. How do we get past such situations? Mr. Eizenstat. Well, Chairman McCain alluded to this. We would not have succeeded if we had a mediation involving private parties, even people as eminent as Judge Renfrew and John Bickerman. Our mediation succeeded because of a combination of events, which do not exist here, but for which the legislation will be a substitute. No. 1, we had the support of the President of the United States, who invested me with the authority to speak on his behalf as the mediator. We had the clout of the U.S. Government. We had the bipartisan support of everyone from Al D'Amato to Chuck Schumer and others in dealing with this. So we knew we spoke with the full authority of the United States. The plaintiffs' attorneys, I mean, if you want to read my book you can get more of this, but if you think that things were bitter there, the plaintiffs' attorneys took out full page ads in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. One that I can recount was about Bayer, the maker of aspirin, that was also a slave labor manufacturer. The headline effectively was, ``If you really want a headache, Bayer, then you won't settle with Ambassador Eizenstat and his negotiations.'' I mean, this went all the way. There were all sorts of pressures put on. And not the least of which in the Swiss bank cases and in the German cases, were threats by major pension funds, including CalPERS, Congressman Pombo, in your State, that they would withdraw funds from either Swiss banks or German slave labor companies unless they settled. So there were all sorts of external pressures. You do not have that here. You do not have a Government appointed mediator, but you have the power of the Congress. When I talked about bipartisan support for what I was doing, you have bipartisan support. It is remarkable, the joint hearing, the joint bills, bipartisan. This speaks volumes and will provide I think a very strong political message that substitutes for all the influences we had in our Holocaust cases. Mr. T. Udall. Thank you very much. I think that my uncle, if he was here, who I think you alluded to testifying before earlier, would say that you may be older, but you are probably wiser. With that, I would like to thank you. Mr. Eizenstat. Since there is not much levity here, in the 1976 primary campaign, all the primary candidates including Jimmy Carter were asked the simple question, what would you do about inflation. And everybody had 10 different answers. Congressman Udall's was the simplest. He said, ``I would give it to the Post Office. They can slow anything down.'' [Laughter.] Mr. T. Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. He also said, and I steal his jokes all the time, he also said, ``Everything that can possibly be said on this subject has been said, only not everyone has said it.'' And that certainly applies to this issue, I think. [Laugher.] Senator Dorgan. Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the questions I might ask [Laughter.] First of all, the chairman and I had a vote, as you know, and we were necessarily absent for a bit. The testimony from this panel I think has been really very interesting and very instructive. I think the last thing that you said, Mr. Eizenstat, is important, that the House and Senate working together, Republicans and Democrats working together, is a very powerful statement here. If we do not resolve this issue, I think Mr. Bickerman said, and perhaps all of you have said it, we are going to be in this predicament for one-half decade, 1 decade, or probably more. And we know already from this year's budget submission by the President that this issue impacts most other issues as well Native Americans. That is why it is so important for us to do everything we possibly can do to see if we can effect a solution here. I am going to defer on questions. I will submit questions to the panel, but let me again say that I think your testimony is particularly and especially useful, given all that we have heard at various hearings. I think that you offer some unique judgments and perspectives about these things, and I appreciate very much your being here today. The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega. STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, U.S. DELEGATE FROM AMERICAN SAMOA Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to thank you and commend you and Chairman Pombo for calling this joint hearing. Not only is it critical, but most important, in all the years that I have tried to follow it with some concern, you know, we have had this issue now, it started off at $2 billion and then the following year there was a bidding that went up to $8 billion to $10 billion in question. So now we are somewhere between $13 billion and $27 billion. I remember years ago, Mr. Chairman, that Congress even appropriated $20 million just to try to attempt to audit the accounts in question, and came up with absolutely zero results. So I really do think that the initiative that you and Chairman Pombo have taken has been really, really, 10 years, I believe, is long overdue in trying to provide some settlement. I really do appreciate the testimonies that have been shared with us this morning by Ambassador Eizenstat and Mr. Bickerman and Ms. Johnigan. I want to ask members of the panel just one question. Do you think it was fair for the administration to subtract the legal fees that have been collected over the years to cut the appropriations for the badly needed funding that is needed by Indian country, to be part of this? I was under the impression this should come under the good faith, what do you call it, clause of United States, of the general fund. But the latest I heard, unless I heard it wrong, whatever amount of money that is being subtracted, that it should be going to the critical needs of current Indian programs, to be taken out of this very issue. I have to disagree. But I wanted to ask the members of the panel how they feel about this. I do not know if you are aware of the situation. Mr. Bickerman. Yes; I am aware of it. No, I do not think it was fair. Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, that should answer it. Thank you very much. [Laughter.] I have listened with interest to the problem, as Ms. Johnigan said earlier, about just simply the difference between receipts and disbursements. The problem is, as simple as these two terms may be, but it has become so complicated that we found nothing but some real sense of bitterness between the two parties. In fairness to both parties, I believe that Ambassador Eizenstat's suggestions have been very, very valid, very, very similar to the situation of the Holocaust claims. I wondered also how Congress was able to determine what was the capped amount that we gave to the Japanese Americans when they also had a similar situation. Maybe lesser numbers, but certainly it is something that we ought to look at. Mr. Eizenstat. This was actually, members of the panel and Mr. Chairman, this was actually a useful benchmark for us. Congress in 1988, I believe it was, finally tried to provide some belated justice for Japanese Americans. There again, it was a per capita amount, no individual hearings, $20,000 per claimant. You could have been in a camp in Washington State or California for 1 month or for 1 year or for the whole war. You got $20,000. Now, obviously there is a degree of arbitrariness to that. But there was also a degree of fairness to it, because had all of those people had to have individual hearings and try to prove what happened to their health and what happened to their livelihoods, they would never have been able to recover. So that $20,000 figure was actually a useful figure when we were trying to determine how much was reasonable to give to a slave and forced laborer. Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to say to Ambassador Eizenstat, Mr. Chairman, this also is another complication that we have just, at least hopefully there may be legislation introduced, and it is in reference to the plight of the Marshallese people when they were, practically all of them, subjected to nuclear radiation during our nuclear testing program after World War II. To this day, to this day the people of the Marshall Islands still have not been properly compensated or even given proper medical treatment by our Government, which is something that I find very similar to the situation that we find ourselves in among our Native American community. Do you think, Ambassador Eizenstat and Mr. Bickerman, is it really not the amount that is at issue. It is how we go about in developing a formula. Like you said, we have to bite the bullet, and some way or somehow we just cannot wait another 20 years for this issue to continue on. I get the sense that it has got to be done legislatively because if we leave it to the courts, it is not going to be resolved. Do I get that impression from the members of the panel? Mr. Eizenstat. I was asked only about 10 days ago to testify, so I started reading some of the opinions. I mean, it is amazing that here we are almost 10 years into litigation, the last Court of Appeals decision just 2 months ago, the interpretation, you know, the typical thing of the Court of Appeals, remanded for actions not inconsistent with this opinion. And the plaintiffs and the Government disagree after 10 years, with what the latest decision was by the court. They have had their chance and they are not going to do it. As I indicated, you cannot have courts settle historical wrongs. They are not created to do that. Their expertise is on case by case adjudication or class actions where people fall in and you have clear evidence. They cannot handle a situation like this where the evidence is poor, the number of claimants is uncertain. This will be batted around between the District Court and the Court of Appeals until all of us are gone and all of the claimants are gone. So legislation is absolutely essential. The formula has to be precise; do as much on a per capita basis as you can; and again bite the bullet. It is not totally arbitrary. John gave you some ranges. You basically know how much flowed in. It is not clear how much flowed out. The Government itself by its own figures says it is about $500 million that is unaccounted for, that did not get paid out. Even if you just plus that up over however many years you want to do that, you couldn't do it over 120 years, but over a reasonable period of time. You start to get into a range which is understandable. Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Congressman Inslee. I am sorry. Go ahead. Mr. Bickerman. I just wanted to respond very quickly. As a mediator, one of our occupational hazards is optimism, but when we first started the discussions, I actually thought that the criteria that both the administration and the plaintiff had for the formula to allocate money was actually pretty close. I am reasonably optimistic that if we can agree on a sum, developing the criteria to distribute that will not be that arduous a process. Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The Chairman. Congressman Inslee. Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I really appreciate your thoughts. This is most troublesome to many of us because we recognize the literary value of Jamdyce v. Jamdyce. We also understand of not wanting to continue this scar that so many people in our country have felt and not being treated by their Federal Government. So it really is a tough issue, I think. I have kind of a general question. If we are looking for resolution, a legislative solution, should we be thinking of Congress picking a number? Or should we be thinking of Congress picking a process to get to that number that should be narrowly defined and achievable through some mechanism that might give the parties more confidence that at least they had their day in court and these decisions were not made just in the back rooms of Congress? What would be the most, and is there any such process that could actually get to a number within our lifetime to achieve that end? Ms. Johnigan. If I could respond to that first. Obviously, what I was presenting was the idea that there would be a process using what has been done to date and refining it for those pieces that appear to be the most contentious and where the least work has been done, and creating it in such a fashion that it at least provides a basis for why the number was created by Congress. Whether you pick a number based on that work or you set the process for that number to be created through that work by other parties, so that you could get the legislation through. One way or the other, from my personal perspective, it you want some broader based support for whatever number you are going to create, there needs to be some process behind it besides the arbitrary selection of some portion from the plaintiffs and some portion from what the Government has done today. That is not to say that I would propose a process that would take a long period of time, but rather look at what has been done and see what would be backfilled into that in a process that would be more streamlined. It would not be something that would make either party happy. It would just, I think, create more of an informed basis for the answer. Mr. Inslee. In your proposal, would you view that as being a binding process, that we are going to go through this process, the number will be generated, Congress will adopt it? Or is this just a hearing process you are talking about? Ms. Johnigan. I would see that as a binding process, if you are going to finish this. I mean, you have to have a binding process that creates a number you are going to have in the legislation that is just the number. Because one of the things that I have heard as people have answered questions today and asked questions, is that there is in some ways always the assumption that a large enough number was created, or a number was created that would actually satisfy some of the issues. Because two of the issues in terms of the accounting, the amounts that should have been received that are not part of the $13 billion throughput, and the amounts that are in dispute in terms of what should have been received that perhaps was from mismanagement. There has been, as far as I can tell, no real work on that issue at all for the IIM accounts, so that the numbers that are being discussed are being discussed from the standpoint of only that which is known to be received. That is a very different calculus. As I have worked with the tribal accounts in this area, what I have seen is that you have already some processes in place to calculate what should have been received, but very little has been done on the asset mismanagement where the fair values have not been received. So I do think there needs to be some thought about a process that says, have we really created a number that is sufficient enough in order to satisfy an allocation that will be considered to be at some level, although somewhat arbitrary, fair. I think that is a process that I highly recommend you go through. Mr. Bickerman. I respectfully disagree with my colleague here. The point of my numbers that I present in my testimony was to show that with just very small changes, these numbers bounce all over the place. I think that a process would give one the false sense of precision when there really isn't precision. There are so many missing documents. This goes back over 100 years. A process I think would just be delayed justice. I think this has gone on for 10 years. I think it would be infinitely more difficult to negotiate a process than it would be to negotiate a number at this point. If you can negotiate a number, my strong, strong recommendation is you do it. Mr. Eizenstat. There is certainly no reason not to have a small panel of experts as you are going through the legislative process look at the existing data, not start recreating, doing new audits and so forth, and giving you the best judgment they can about the status of things. But you are not going to be much better off at the end of that process. I think to satisfy the fact that you exercised due diligence on the legislative side, it is not a bad idea. But what would be a genuinely bad idea is to go through this legislation, leave the figure blank and then leave it to some mythical party, a claims commission, to determine what the amount should be. That is what legislation is for. After all, you really do this in a sense all the time. When you legislate, you create appropriations for amounts, you have to make a rough estimate. How much are Katrina victims entitled to? You appropriate a figure. You try to make the roughest kind of calculation, and then you realize you will come back if you have to another time, but you make the best judgment you can. That is really what you are trying to do here. So certainly you do not want to be totally arbitrary and blind yourself to the work that has been done. It is probably worth having some type of small group advise you, of looking at the current data, giving you some sense of where that data is, and how confused it is, and giving you the best estimate they can of where things stand. On the plus-up figure that Chairman Pombo mentioned, there I think we can be much more precise. There is very clear agreement, I think, about how you plus-up accounts over the years. We will be glad to share the figures that we used and the methodology that was used. So I would really urge in the process, yes, if you want to take a few experts and have them look at the state of things now, fine. But do not think you can create a process that is going to give you much more clarity than you have now. That is the whole problem, the data does not exist. Mr. Inslee. The only concern I would have about that approach is this is not exactly Katrina. The hurricane was caused by either an act of the Creator or global warming, depending on your belief system. This situation is an extinguishment of a property right by the entity that caused it, which is the Federal Government. Mr. Eizenstat. So were the Japanese claims, so were the Holocaust claims. They were all extinguishing a right or a theoretical right by either a legislative or a government mediated process. Mr. Inslee. I have made my point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you very much. I thank the witnesses. This has been extremely helpful to us. Thank you. Mr. Eizenstat. I am sure we will be more than happy to continue to work with you during this process, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. We would be pleased to do that. Finally, we have Mike Marchand, who is with the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and the vice president of the Colville Confederated Tribes; Joseph Garcia is the president of the NCAI; Keller George, who is the president of the United South and Eastern Tribes; and Harold Frazier, the chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association. I want to apologize to our witnesses because we have to shut down here in just a few minutes. I would like to say that your complete statements will be made part of the record. We appreciate your patience, and I hope you understand that we have a joint session of Congress to be addressed by the Prime Minister of Italy. So if you could briefly summarize and give us your position very rapidly, we would appreciate it. I am sure we will be meeting formally and informally again in the future on this issue. Mr. Marchand. STATEMENT OF MIKE MARCHAND, AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS AND FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES Mr. Marchand. Good morning. I am very honored to be here today. My name is Mike Marchand. I am a councilman with the Colville Confederated Tribes located in Washington State. We are composed of 12 tribes on a reservation that was created in 1872, when our people were forcibly marched from their homeland, at gunpoint in many instances. The Chairman. Mr. Marchand, you are going to have to make your opening statement very brief. Please proceed. Mr. Marchand. Well, my only point was that this trust system was imposed on our people. We did not ask for it. There have been comparisons by the administration that this is very much like a commercial banking operation. I would just contend that it is not. We are doing the best we can to work with the system. ATNI, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, is a consortium of 57 tribes in the Pacific Northwest, and our leadership in the Northwest has been discussing this issue and watching the litigation as best we can. It is the conclusion of most of our leaders in the Northwest that we need to come to a settlement. The parties in the litigation do not appear to be getting any closer to settlement. In fact, they seem to be getting farther and farther away each day. We believe that it is creating a lot of problems and retaliation against tribal governments. It is creating problems with redefining the trust relationship between our people and the United States. We really think it is really time that we need to draw this to a conclusion. I would just like to say, I guess briefly, that I think it has really caused a whole change in the climate between the tribe and the United States relations. In the 1960s, we went through a period of termination. Under President Nixon, I think he turned that around to self-determination and 638 contracting. Tribes were given a large voice in their day to day matters in life. I think we have seen a couple, two or three decades of steady progress. But today, I think things are kind of reversed. It seems like we are going backward again. I think a lot of the solutions that are being imposed on Indian people. Our voices are not listened to anymore. I think there is a real problem with the administration in place today. They do not seem to have a lot of knowledge about life on reservations or how to communicate with our people. I think it is a real problem. I think we have gone backward. I think a lot of that has kind of spun out of this Cobell case because of the litigation. [Prepared statement of Mr. Marchand appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir. I apologize, but we really have to move through the witnesses. I appreciate it. Your written statements will be made part of the record and carefully examined. I thank you and I want to apologize for this time constraint to all the witnesses. President Joe Garcia. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GARCIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS Mr. Garcia. Good morning, everyone. Chairman McCain, Chairman Pombo, Vice Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and House Resources Committee, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman McCain, and Senator Dorgan for coming to our NCAI meeting yesterday. That was very important, your presence. We have a lot of tribal leaders here this week. I think it is important that they hear the dialog that you provided. I will now move on to the testimony part. The National Congress of American Indians strongly believes that it is time for Congress to move forward with a fair settlement for the Cobell v. Norton litigation. Tribal leaders throughout the country support the goals of the Cobell plaintiffs. At the same time, tribes are concerned about the impacts of the litigation upon the ability of the United States to deliver services to tribal communities and to support Federal policies of tribal importance. As you know, hundreds of millions of dollars have been diverted for this effort, and we continue to battle for years and years. Continual litigation will continue to cost millions of dollars. The continued historical accounting activities by the department may cost billions and are very unlikely to achieve satisfactory results. Three years ago, NCAI passed a resolution stating that it is in the best interest of the tribes and individual account holders that tribal leaders participate in a Cobell settlement, and development of an effective system for management of trust assets in the future. Former NCAI President Tex Hall worked very hard over the last 3 years to push for a settlement, and I plan to continue that effort. Earlier this year, the NCAI executive committee passed another resolution on the settlement litigation. First, we want to mention that NCAI supports S. 1439. We also support H.R. 4322, and the efforts of Senators McCain and Dorgan and Congressmen Pombo and Rahall in introducing this legislation. Second, NCAI strongly urges the Cobell plaintiffs, the Department of the Interior and the Congress to increase their efforts to develop a viable settlement proposal for the Cobell litigation. Specifically, we would encourage settlement options that will engage the participation of individual Indian account holders. I believe that is what we are hearing today. Third, NCAI urges the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Resources Committee to move forward with the markup of the legislation, based on the comments received from Indian country, and to develop a more definitive settlement proposal for the Cobell litigation than what is currently found in title I. We encourage you to continue to consult Indian country as you move forward to the markup of the bill. Cobell litigation has had some positive effects. It has focused attention on the important issue of trust reform. However, there are also increasing costs and side effects that the litigation has caused, and that is provided in the written testimony. So we want Congress to either put a stop to these unreasonable burdens on the tribes, or to settle the litigation, and the settling the litigation is the thing that we would propose as well. I will conclude my remarks at this point, in the interest of time. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. President, we look forward to working with you, and congratulations on your new position, as I mentioned before. Mr. Garcia. Thank you. The Chairman. President George. STATEMENT OF KELLER GEORGE, PRESIDENT, UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES Mr. George. Thank you, Senator McCain, and also thank you Chairman Pombo, Vice Chairman Dorgan, and Ranking Member Rahall. We thank you for this opportunity to briefly give some insights on this case. Cobell litigation has been going on for over 10 years. But I want to urge your committees to seize the opportunity to settle the Cobell case now and reform the DOI's administration of trust-related functions by acting on S. 1439 and H.R. 4322 this session. As to the Cobell provisions of these bills, title I includes a section that will specifically identify an amount that will be made available to settle the case. Ideally, it should be up to the plaintiffs and the Government to agree upon a settlement account. Previous witnesses have said that probably is not going to happen, but we call upon the Congress to act very swiftly so to come to a conclusion because we know that if it does not, it will erode the trust responsibility that the United States Government has toward Indian tribes. As USET member tribes, we will stand with you in your efforts to seek a resolution of the Cobell lawsuit and to implement needed reforms to DOI's administration of trust functions. The choice we face today is clear. Millions more can be spent on litigation and an accounting that likely will tell us little more than we already know, while the trust relationship continues to erode, or legislation can be enacted that settles the lawsuit in a fair and equitable manner, and implements much-needed reform on DOI's management of trust resources. USET member tribes strongly believe that the second choice is far better an option. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. George appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much. I believe Congresswoman Herseth would like to acknowledge the next witness. Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and my good friend from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, as well as my Chairman on the House Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, for this opportunity. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce Chairman Harold Frazier, also a good friend, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, whose members predominantly reside in North Central South Dakota. I am working with Chairman Frazier not only in his capacity as chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, but also as chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association. I would commend his testimony to you as someone who has been focused and tenacious in his efforts, as well as approaching settlement negotiations in the Cobell lawsuit in good faith, in working hard to meet the objectives that I know you have, that Ranking Member Dorgan has, that Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall have. But that any settlement really reflect to the best interests of Indian country. So I appreciate the opportunity to introduce him to you today. The Chairman. Thank you very much. Welcome, sir. STATEMENT OF HAROLD FRAZIER, CHAIRMAN, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN'S ASSOCIATION Mr. Frazier. Thank you, Congresswoman Herseth. I want to begin by thanking Senators McCain and Dorgan and Congressmen Pombo and Rahall for having this joint hearing. I will get right to the points. I think it is essential that a settlement amount comes from a claims judgment fund and not from the BIA budget or any other Federal program or budgets that serve Indian people. Section 102, this section would bar tribal landowners and heirs from any recovery from claims prior to 1994. It is important that the settlement only, that we go beyond. There have been a lot of issues that have been done to a lot of our people in the past, especially the ones who have served our country in wars and protecting our rights and our freedom. It is also important that the settlement only addresses individual accounting claims, and not any land based or asset claims. Our concerns are for Congress to protect the budgets of the tribal programs from being robbed to pay attorney fees. All the regulations resulting from this act may be subject to negotiated rulemaking. That will ensure that a bureaucratic process is not used to misconstrue the provisions of the act. We urge congressional leaders to write the appeal section to streamline the appeal process and allow class action appeals and allow the claimant to appeal in local courts and consolidate the appeal claims. Again, we strongly urge congressional leaders to be crystal clear in section 110(d) that tribal trust accounts are inclusive of tribal IIM accounts. This clarification would avoid any misinterpretation that tribes should not be considered claimants for purposes of settlements. I thank you for this opportunity and I urge you to maintain the principle of inclusive decision making when addressing all areas of trust reform. It is important that tribal leaders should be at the table when trust reform is being discussed. We are the ones who have the most to lose. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Frazier appears in appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much. Chairman Pombo. Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, any questions I have I will submit in writing to our panel. Thank you. The Chairman. Senator Dorgan. Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I will do that, too. Let me just say that as has always been the case with us on the Committee on Indian Affairs, and I am sure our House counterparts, consultation is really important. Consultation is critical. I think the witnesses today have provided some excellent statements. We are sorry for the brevity, but we intend to continue to be involved with you and to consult closely with you as we try to resolve these issues. So thank you very much for being here. The Chairman. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, just shortly, to commend members of the panel for their testimony. I would like to make emphasis again in the spirit of bipartisanship, that this should really not be a politicized issue, and I sincerely hope and look forward to working with you and our Chairman Pombo and Mr. Rahall on our side, and Mr. Dorgan. Hopefully in this Congress we will make some form of a settlement in this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. Congressman Inslee. Mr. Inslee. I have no questions. I just want to say, of all the times we have ever had an obligation to have close relationships with the tribes and an open dialogue, this is the time. I hope that we will all fulfill that obligation. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you. Congresswoman Herseth. Ms. Herseth. I also will submit my questions for the record, but just thank the panel of witnesses for their leadership and for their willingness to offer their insights on the pending legislation. The Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses. I want to thank the members who came to this important hearing. We will be moving forward. Chairman Pombo and I have agreed, as we have already, that a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation will be moving forward soon on this issue. As we go through this process, we would very much appreciate your continued participation and input. I can assure you, you will not like the outcome. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Go ahead. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, if I can make one more statement. I would like the panel to know, as well as the Congressmen to know that the statements that were made earlier with Mr. Bickerman and Mr. Eizenstat, I think the formula and the ideas they presented are very, very, very good, and that will help focus on the settlement. And so we would support those efforts. The Chairman. You know, that means a lot to us, Joe, and I thank you, because we think they gave us a very good framework to work on, and we are very grateful for your conditioned approval. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:10 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 Charles Renfrew and John Bickerman Chairman McCain, Chairman Pombo, Vice Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Congressman Rahall, members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the House Resources Committee, my name is John Bickerman and I appear here today on behalf of myself and Charles Renfrew. Judge Renfrew regrets that he cannot be here today due to an unavoidable conflict but wants to assure the committee that the comments I am about to deliver are his as well. We have worked on this testimony together and they accurately reflect our joint views. First, I would like to provide some background about our role, for it has not been the traditional role in which mediators normally serve. Two years ago this month, the staff of your committees contacted both of us to inquire about our interest in assisting the parties in the Cobell v. Norton dispute reach a consensual settlement. We were interviewed separately by the plaintiffs' counsel and senior officials from the Departments of the Interior and Justice, but with the strong encouragement by the committee's staffs that the parties should engage in mediation. Soon thereafter both the plaintiffs and the administration chose us to help them. Funding for our services was provided by the Department of Justice, but we were assured we would have complete independence in our actions and, indeed, we have enjoyed the traditional independence and neutrality that neutral mediators require. Although we had not met prior to this assignment, Judge Renfrew and I have worked together seamlessly and have been in complete accord with respect to all aspects of the mediation and the testimony we present today. Our assignment was to engage the parties in negotiation to seek a resolution of all claims brought by plaintiffs in their class action lawsuit now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. But our mission was also broader than traditional mediation. From the outset, both the parties and Congressional staff requested that we periodically report back to Congress regarding our efforts and our progress. This request was made for three reasons: first, any resolution we achieved through negotiation would likely require Congressional action; second, Congress wanted to know if either the plaintiffs or the defendants were behaving in a dilatory manner or otherwise negotiating in bad faith; and third, Congress wanted to know if a resolution was impossible, so that it could decide whether to take action. In most mediations, confidentiality of the negotiations is a bedrock principle. In this case, very little of the content of our discussions remained confidential. Indeed, we were expected to periodically disclose our conclusions to Congress. Although we are both experienced in mediating complex, high conflict public disputes, neither one of us could have predicted the difficult task we were about to face. Never before had we seen the level of acrimony or the inability to agree on even the simplest of logistical or procedural matters. We could not even get the parties to sign a mediation agreement that set out basic ground rules for the parties' conduct. Although we made some small progress, especially in the area of developing a model to resolve the information technology disputes regarding the security of Individual Indian Money [IIM] Trust data, within 6 months, we realized that a negotiated resolution was impossible. In October 2004, we met with the leaders of the two Congressional authorizing committees to report our conclusions and urge that Congress take the lead in crafting a resolution. We continue to believe that only Congressional action can resolve this dispute for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the IIM Trust and allow the United States to devote its resources to the traditional services it has provided Indian country. If Congress takes no action at this time, the litigation path will take years if not decades to reach finality. Many deserving beneficiaries will have died in the interim. Those beneficiaries who are alive will not be made whole. We also believe that the Department of the Interior's ability to serve Indian country will be compromised. So much of the policy affecting Indian country seems now to be made through the prism of the Cobell litigation. We are concerned that the historically beneficial trust relationship between the Federal Government and Indian country is in jeopardy as a result of this litigation. There is no dispute that the historical conduct of the United States in managing and accounting for the IIM Trust has been flawed. The Federal District Court of the District Columbia has so held and its judgment has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, Congress recognized the problem when it passed the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, P.L. No. 103-412, 108 Stat. 4239 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 162a et seq. & Sec. 4001 et seq.) in 1994. More than 10 years later, the problem persists. Substantial sums have been spent trying to fix a system that, without legislative changes, may be beyond repair. The pending legislation will go a long way toward addressing the underlying structural problems and compensating IIM beneficiaries for the Government's past negligence by restating the account balances for individual beneficiaries. Without legislation to fix the system, the problem will grow exponentially. However, we confine our testimony to title I and, specifically, how to value the Plaintiffs' Claim. While there is little serious dispute over the question of liability, the gulf that divides the parties over the magnitude of the liability is enormous. The most vexing problem facing your committees is properly valuing the claims and assigning a number that adequately compensates the IIM beneficiaries for the discrepancies between what is in their trust accounts and what should have been there. This is a hard task for which good, reliable data may not readily exist. But the difficulty and the imprecision of deriving a figure should not deter Congress from making a decision now and advancing the very fine legislation that your committees have drafted. As mediators we are accustomed to seeing the validity of the arguments of both sides to a dispute. This case is no different. We believe that the arguments of both the administration and the plaintiffs regarding the amount of adjustment that needs to be made are both partially correct and partially flawed. Initially, we understood the plaintiffs' position to be that strict common law fiduciary principles ought to apply. Absent the United States showing that funds were collected and paid to beneficiaries, the Government was obligated to restate the IIM individual accounts to the full amount in dispute plus interest. They said, ``If you can't show it, you owe it.'' In public statements in Indian country plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff have told beneficiaries that the amount that they are entitled to receive exceeds $100 billion and is in the range of $170 billion. We believe that these statements have created unrealistic expectations that have complicated efforts to resolve this dispute. More recently, the plaintiffs presented a settlement demand of $27.5 billion, assuming for settlement purposes, a 20-percent rate of funds not paid to beneficiaries as a measure of ``rough justice,'' but without data supporting this rate. Testimony of Elouise C. Cobell before the House Committee on Resources Hearing on H.R. 4322, Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, December 8, 2005, at 7. As we show later in this testimony the choice of assumptions regarding the distribution of unpaid funds over the course of the trust fund, the ``error rate,'' the rate of interest used, and whether the interest is compounded annually dramatically impact the settlement value. The values chosen by the plaintiffs appear to us to be without foundation. The position of the United States is also suspect. The Department of the Interior has spent considerable funds to trace the record of transactions in the IIM system to determine if the payment made to the accounts of trust fund beneficiaries accurately reflects what should have been paid. The possible outcomes include both underpayments and overpayments. The preliminary results of this investigation are that the observed error rate is very small. Testimony of James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary and Ross Swimmer, Special Trustee for American Indians on the Cobell Lawsuit, before the House Committee on Resources Hearing on H.R. 4322, Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, December 8, 2005, at 3-5. Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, Department of the Interior estimate of a settlement value would be far less than $500 million. This calculation may also be based on arbitrary and false assumptions. We believe that there are three potential sources of error in the IIM system: (1) money was not collected; (2) money was not properly deposited; and, (3) money was not properly disbursed. With respect to the money that was not collected, funds due IIM beneficiaries either never made it into the system in the first place or may have been collected late. The missing funds or the interest due beneficiaries for late payments could reflect a significant amount of money. This is particularly true in the land-based IIM accounts. We would designate this type of error as ``funds mismanagement.'' We believe fund mismanagement is sufficiently related to the claims in the pending litigation that it should be resolved under title I of the proposed legislation. But, fund mismanagement should be distinguished from ``land mismanagement.'' By contrast, land mismanagement would encompasses claims by individual beneficiaries over the failure of the United States to negotiate a fair compensation for their oil, mineral, grazing, real estate, or other assets that have been held in trust by the United States. We do not believe that these land mismanagement claims should be part of the resolution of the Cobell litigation. These claims have never been asserted by plaintiffs and are much more susceptible to individualized proofs and thus capable of being more accurately evaluated. The second potential source of error is that once in the system, the funds were not properly deposited in the beneficiaries' trust accounts. This has been the focus of the efforts of the Department of the Interior to value the plaintiffs' claim. While analyzing the administration of funds that have been received by the Department is a good start, it is not sufficient. Moreover, the Government appears not yet to have included in its analysis the land-based accounts where logically many more of the errors should arise. Because the analysis by the Office of Special Trustee only considers the second step of the process and does not analyze land-based accounts, we believe its estimates significantly understate the true exposure of the United States. The third source of error is whether beneficiaries actually received the disbursements that they were intended to receive. Did the beneficiaries get their checks and cash them? We have been advised by the Department of Treasury that the amount of checks that go un-cashed is relatively small. Nonetheless, there is no way of knowing whether these checks reached the intended payees. Frequently, as mediators we are asked to value a settlement in a dispute. In many instances the value of a case may depend on the litigation risk or the probability of a party prevailing at trial. What seems certain to us is that there will not be a quick end to this litigation. If Congress does not act, we believe that there will be many more rounds of appeals. Inevitably, one of the parties will petition the Supreme Court for review. By then, many of the IIM beneficiaries will be dead. There is no perfect or ``night'' number. Especially, as in this case, where missing documents may make an accurate assessment impossible, an arbitrary number may be the best path to a settlement. Consequently, we do not favor an extended effort to develop and apply a methodology to arrive at a number. We do not believe that it is worth the time and expense of such an effort because, at best, a methodology will only give the appearance of precision. It is our opinion that there are too many unknown and unknowable pieces of information that would be needed to support an analysis of a settlement value. What we do know is this: The parties seem to agree that approximately $13 billion should have been paid to beneficiaries over the time the IIM trust has been in existence. Neither side disagrees that a portion of these funds was indeed paid to the IIM beneficiaries. Where there is disagreement is in calculating the amount still owed trust beneficiaries. Other factors influence greatly the calculation of a settlement. Because of the time-value of money, moneys not paid a long time ago can greatly increase the total liability calculation. However, the Department of the Interior reports that the vast bulk of funds that went through the IIM system did so in the last 30 years. This seems like a reasonable conclusion that has been supported by verifiable data. By way of example and for illustrative purposes only--we want to be clear that we are not recommending a specific settlement value--we calculated the amount that the IIM Trust would need to be restated using various assumptions. According to the Department of the Interior figures, $10 billion of the $13 billion in IIM Trust receipts were realized after 1970. We further assumed that only $500 million of Trust Fund assets moved through the IIM Trust prior to World War II. Assuming a 20-percent error rate, a 3-percent compound interest rate, the fund would need to be restated by $7.2 billion. If we change our assumptions and consider a 10-percent error rate and a 4-percent compound interest rate, the restated balance is $5.6 billion. Raising the compound interest rate to 5 percent, but holding the error rate at 10 percent yields a value of $9.8 billion. The point of this exercise is not to recommend a settlement but to show the significant fluctuations in value with small changes in assumptions, especially the compound interest rate. Parenthetically, we note that the use of a compound interest rate is a hotly contested issue between the parties. If simple interest was used, these values would fall. Indeed, what these calculations show is that a final settlement is extremely arbitrary depending on the assumptions one uses. We do not believe that more time and analysis will yield a result that is more precise or less arbitrary. An alternative approach would be to look at the avoided costs associated with the Office of Special Trustee. Since 2001, the Office of Special Trustee has received more than $3 billion. If this litigation is not settled, how much more will Congress spend to comply with its legal obligations to perform an accounting? We believe that these funds would be better directed to the IIM beneficiaries. On behalf of Judge Renfrew and myself, we continue to offer our assistance to both committees in whatever roles you see fit for us to serve. We believe that the prompt enactment of S. 1439 and H.R. 4322 is an imperative and we encourage the committees to schedule these bills for markup as soon as possible. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I will be pleased to answer any questions the committees may have. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.099 Prepared Statement of Mike Marchand, First Vice President, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Chairman McCain, Chairman Pombo, Senator Dorgan, Representative Rahall, and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Resources, my name is Mike Marchand, I am the First Vice President of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians [ATNI] and a member of the Colville Tribal Council. On behalf of ATNI, I thank you for your leadership on the trust reform issue and this hearing today. We are grateful for the work that has gone into S. 1439 and H.R. 4322, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005. ATNI supports enactment of this legislation and we are hopeful that the Congress will act on it this year. I am delighted to be here today with Keller George, the president of the United South and Eastern Tribes [USET]. USET has been in the forefront of tribal efforts to bring about meaningful reform of the management and administration of the Federal trust responsibility. For the last several months, ATNI and USET have been working together to develop recommendations for amendments to S. 1439 and H.R. 4322. We hope to be able to forward to the committees our joint proposals for amendments in the next few weeks. We look forward to working with the committees to help ensure enactment of legislation this year. We are very pleased that the committees are examining ways to place a value on the claims in the Cobell v. Norton case. Even though the case seeks an accounting for the IIM funds and the Federal District Court is powerless to award damages to the plaintiffs, everyone who is familiar with the case has known for years that funds will be required to settle the case. This understanding is reflected in title I of S. 1439 and H.R. 4322 and by this hearing today. The plaintiffs have estimated the value of the claim to be somewhere between $27.8 billion and $170 billion. The Departments of the Interior, Justice, and Treasury have not been willing to openly state an estimate of value for the claims. The Department of the Interior has indicated that it might cost as much as $10 to $12 billion to do an itemized accounting for the IIM funds. That estimate led ATNI, among others, to suggest that an appropriate value for the claim might be in the range of $14 billion on the premise that it would be far better to provide the funds that would otherwise be paid to accounting firms to the account holders themselves. And to further complicate the search for a solution, the November 15 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, DC Circuit held that the Department of the Interior can use statistical sampling to determine what is owed, which has led some to estimate the cost for the accounting problem to be around $350 million. We do not know what the correct method is for valuing the claims in the Cobell case, nor do we know the value of those claims. What we do know is to date: (A) there has been no success in getting the parties together to negotiate a compromise settlement figure. (B) that if the present course is left unchanged it is not at all likely that the IIM account holders will receive any compensation during the lifetime of many, especially those who need it most. (C) we will continue to see an erosion of the gains that tribal governments have made under the policies of self-determination and self-governance. We understand that it will be necessary for the committees to place a value on the settlement of the plaintiff's claims in order to move S. 1439 and H.R. 4322 through the legislative process. We do not know which method would be best in the Cobell case, but we will work with the committees to assess the options. We trust the committees to be fair in their evaluation of those options. We note with interest that the Congress has appropriated over $3 billion since 2001 to provide for the defense of the Cobell case and the reform and restructuring of the administration of the trust funds and assets by the Department of the Interior. Most of this money has been provided to the Office of Special Trustee--an office that was created in the Trust Reform Act of 1994 and was intended to be temporary. That is a lot of money to spend in a short period of time, particularly when it is provided in the absence of a defined plan and for poorly understood purposes. It is clear that the tribes have not supported or requested these appropriations because in most instances they involve the reallocation of funds that are desperately needed for education, law enforcement, and for fighting epidemics of alcohol and substance abuse. It has been more than a little difficult to get the administration and the Congress to focus on these areas in light of the significant commitment of appropriations to the Department's response to the Cobell case. We are also seeing the very nature of the trust responsibility redefined by the Department in response to the Cobell case. In some instances the changes that have been made or that are underway run directly counter to the Congressional policies of self-determination and self-governance and undermine the huge investment of fiscal resources that the Congress has made in those policies since 1975. In effect the Cobell litigation has come to hold the tribes and the Congress hostage to the Department's assessment of what it must do in order to comply with the real or anticipated orders of the Federal District Court. We are weary of policies that are developed in the context of advancing an adversarial position in the Cobell litigation and are concerned of the implications if this is allowed to continue any longer. There has been some improvement in the day-to-day administration of trust funds and trust assets by the Department. Those changes are welcome, even if the cost benefit ratio is not. At the same time, we are mindful of the fact that those who were supposed to be served by the Cobell litigation have received little. IIM account holders who have been told that they are owed tens of billions, or hundreds of billions of dollars are no closer to being made whole today than they were the day before the Cobell case was filed 10 years ago. Scores of account holders have died since the case was filed. Without a settlement the litigation is likely to go on for another decade or more. And, even if the plaintiffs prevail, the Federal District Court cannot make the account holders whole. Only the Congress or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims can provide financial relief to the account holders. Only the Congress can provide the direction for the real reform that is needed to ensure the proper management of the trust funds and assets. And, only the Congress can ensure that the tribal governments have the opportunity to assume the day-to-day responsibility for the protection and enhancement of the corpus of the trust. It has been 10 months since this legislation was first introduced and this is its third hearing. To date the administration and the Department have had ample opportunity to lead or be an active participant but have done next to nothing to work with the plaintiff's tribes or the committees to find a workable solution. We stand prepared to work with the committees to arrive at a value for the Cobell claims and to work for the prompt enactment of S. 1439 and H.R. 4322. We ask that the committees schedule these bills for markup in the next 30 days. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I will be pleased to answer any questions the committees may have. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6395.103