Bill Overview
Title: A bill to reaffirm actions taken by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to take land into trust for all federally recognized Indian tribes. Specifically, the bill applies the Indian Reorganization Act to all federally recognized Indian tribes, regardless of when a tribe became recognized. The amendments made by this bill are retroactively effective as if included in the Indian Reorganization Act. This effectively overrules the Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, which held that Interior could not take land into trust for a specified tribe because that tribe had not been under federal jurisdiction when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934.
Sponsors: Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: People in federally recognized Indian tribes
Estimated Size: 6500000
- The bill focuses on taking land into trust for federally recognized Indian tribes.
- Approximately 574 Indian tribes are federally recognized within the United States.
- Federally recognized tribes are eligible for a range of federal benefits, services, and protection because of their formal recognition status.
- The Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar affected the way land could be taken into trust, limiting it only to tribes that were recognized at the time of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934.
- Reaffirming the Secretary of the Interior's actions for the benefit of Indian Tribes would directly impact these tribes, particularly those affected by the Carcieri decision.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily aimed at benefiting federally recognized tribes, particularly those affected by the Carcieri decision, which likely includes tribes federally recognized after 1934.
- With an estimated population of 6.5 million people in federally recognized tribes, the policy targets improvements in land management, cultural preservation, and legal clarity regarding land rights.
- Given the budgetary constraints, the policy is likely to have varied impacts across individuals, based on their tribe's recognition status and the historical context of land claims.
- The general population may perceive changes in tribal land management without direct effects unless they reside near or interact frequently with tribal lands.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal leader (Nevada)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy restores our right to claim land as promised before, which is crucial for economic and cultural development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
History professor (Alaska)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is important to correct historical injustices; this is a major reversal making land trust applications viable again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Lawyer (Oklahoma)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps streamline processes for tribes to recover or secure their lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental activist (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring tribes can manage their lands supports ecological preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Urban planner (New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy supports economic development on tribal lands, which is long overdue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Healthcare worker (South Dakota)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially, this could stabilize communities and improve healthcare access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired businessman (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as this leads to clearer land agreements, it could reduce disputes and foster cooperation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (Montana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inefficient land processes in tribes can hinder mutually beneficial partnerships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College student (New Mexico)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's inspiring to see steps being taken to correct past mistakes for tribes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired school teacher (Washington)
Age: 75 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long overdue change, beneficial for younger generations increasing opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- There is significant variability in projected costs due to diverse tribal circumstances and needs.
- Interagency coordination challenges may incur additional oversight costs.
- Legal disputes arising from retroactive applications of the policy could slow transitions and impact costs.
- The bill's retroactive provisions may trigger unexpected administrative burdens requiring prompt resource allocations.