[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                JUSTICE, EQUITY, DIVERSITY, AND INCLU-
                 SION IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-
                 MAKING: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
                 ORGANIZATIONS AND GRANTMAKING 
                 FOUNDATIONS

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, February 8, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-13

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-811 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
         
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
    CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Garret Graves, LA
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Jody B. Hice, GA
Joe Neguse, CO                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Mike Levin, CA                       Daniel Webster, FL
Katie Porter, CA                     Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Russ Fulcher, ID
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Pete Stauber, MN
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Diana DeGette, CO                    Jerry L. Carl, AL
Julia Brownley, CA                   Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Blake D. Moore, UT
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Yvette Herrell, NM
Darren Soto, FL                      Lauren Boebert, CO
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Jay Obernolte, CA
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Cliff Bentz, OR
Ed Case, HI                          Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                       Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                
                                
                              ----------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, February 8, 2022........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     2

Statement of Witnesses:

    Chatterjee, Keya, Executive Director, U.S. Climate Action 
      Network, Washington, DC....................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
    Dosunmu, Abdul, Campaign Manager, Climate Funders Justice 
      Pledge, Donors of Color Network, Dallas, Texas.............    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Forbes, Peter, Co-Founder, First Light, Waitsfield, Vermont..    20
        Prepared statement of....................................    22
    Freeland, Mark A., Navajo Nation Council Delegate, 
      Crownpoint/Tse'li'ahi/Nahodishgish/Becenti/Whiterock/Lake 
      Valley/Huerfano/Nageezi Chapters, Window Rock, Arizona.....    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    20

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    All Pueblo Council of Governors, Statement for the Record, 
      Chairman Mark Mitchell.....................................    69
    Pueblo of Acoma, Statement for the Record, Governor Randall 
      Vicente....................................................    71
    Santa Clara Pueblo, Statement for the Record, Governor J. 
      Michael Chavarria..........................................    76
    The Wilderness Society, Letter to Chair Grijalva and Ranking 
      Member Westerman, from Mo Dailey, Vice President of 
      Conservation Programs, dated February 7, 2022..............    80

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        ``Dear White Enviros: You can't fight climate change 
          without communities of color,'' by Rep. Raul M. 
          Grijalva and Andres Jimenez, The Hill, February 8, 2022    81

    Submissions for the Record by Delegate Freeland

        24th Navajo Nation Council, Proposed Navajo Nation 
          Committee Resolution 0189-19, dated July 2, 2019.......    83
        24th Navajo Nation Council, Office of the Speaker, Letter 
          to Senators Cortez and Lee, dated May 20, 2021.........   114
        24th Navajo Nation Council, Office of the Speaker, Letter 
          to House Speaker Pelosi and House Minority Leader 
          McCarthy, dated September 17, 2021.....................   115
        Chaco Cultural Heritage Withdrawal Area Map dated April 
          2, 2019................................................   117
        Chaco Protected Sites Map................................   118
        Navajo Nation, Letter to President Biden from President 
          Nez and Vice President Lizer, dated November 24, 2021..   119
        U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, 
          Letter to President Jonathan Nez of Navajo Nation from 
          Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, dated 
          September 24, 2020.....................................   120
                                     


 
   OVERSIGHT HEARING ON JUSTICE, EQUITY, DIVERSITY, AND INCLUSION IN 
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYMAKING: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND 
                        GRANTMAKING FOUNDATIONS

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 8, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman, 
Lowenthal, Gallego, Neguse, Levin, Porter, Leger Fernandez, 
Stansbury, Velazquez, Brownley, Dingell, McEachin, Soto, 
Garcia, McCollum, Cohen, Tonko, Tlaib, Trahan; Westerman, 
Gohmert, McClintock, Graves, Gonzalez-Colon, Stauber, Moore, 
Herrell, Boebert, Obernolte, and Bentz.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Committee on Natural 
Resources will now come to order.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Environmental 
Policymaking: The Role of Environmental Organizations and 
Grantmaking Foundations.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority 
Member or their designee. This will allow us to hear from our 
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the close of 
the hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess, 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    As described in the notice, statements, documents, or 
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at 
[email protected].
    Additionally, please note that as with our in-person 
meetings, Members are responsible for their own microphones and 
can be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background 
noise.
    Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform the Committee immediately.
    Thank you. I would now like to begin the opening 
statements. Let me extend the opportunity to the Ranking 
Member, if you would like any opening statement before our 
witnesses begin.
    Mr. Westerman, if you are here.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva.
    I would like to start by recognizing our colleague from 
Utah, Representative Blake Moore, who has agreed to serve as 
the Ranking Republican on the Oversight and Investigation 
Subcommittee for the rest of this Congress. Representative 
Moore has been an active member of this Committee from day one 
and is the current Vice Ranking Member of the O&I Subcommittee. 
I know his experiences in the public and private sectors will 
serve him well in this new role.
    Now onto the business at hand.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. The Majority has convened this hearing to 
discuss the nexus between the principles of justice, equity, 
diversity, and inclusion in our nation's environmental 
policymaking. I would argue that, rather than the abstract, our 
focus should be on how environmental policies impact 
communities across the nation.
    Actions mean more than just words. And, I think, from our 
witness testimony today and our Members' questions, we will see 
that the actions of my colleagues across the aisle are actually 
disenfranchising people rather than helping people.
    According to the Interior Department's Environmental 
Justice Vision Statement, the Department hopes to manage 
natural resources, and I quote, ``in a manner that is 
sustainable, equitable, accessible, and inclusive of all 
populations.'' The communities the environmental justice 
movement aims to include in the decision-making process, 
however, are the very ones being harmed by the Biden 
administration and its policies. And the echo chamber of 
environmental groups often supports these bad policies.
    Let's use the Biden administration's energy policies as an 
example. At the end of 2021, inflation reached a 40-year high, 
increasing costs for American families. In fact, the average 
American family is estimated to have spent $1,200 more on 
energy costs in 2021 than they did in 2020. Some estimate that 
20 percent of Americans struggled to pay their energy bills in 
full at least once last year.
    Seeing such increases leaves Americans wondering, ``Why are 
my energy costs getting more expensive?'' The answer, in part, 
is that the Biden administration, with the support of 
environmental groups, is so focused on environmental justice, 
constantly attacking the oil and gas industry, threatening our 
nation's domestic supply of energy, and ultimately driving up 
energy costs.
    This Committee has previously heard testimony from Derrick 
Hollie, an advocate for energy affordability, who, for example, 
explained how decreasing the availability of affordable 
domestic energy most negatively impacts low-income, minority, 
and rural communities. Yet, the Biden administration and 
Democrats continue to advance policy positions that jeopardize 
the availability of cheap and reliable domestic energy 
supplies, curtailing affordable energy for these communities.
    So, while we can spend time talking about the virtues of 
including under-represented communities in policy discussions, 
actions by the left have increased cost burdens for the very 
same people they purport to help. Unfortunately, as 
environmental groups push for more regulations and red tape, we 
can only expect to see harsher financial burdens from these 
misguided policies.
    That is why it is so important for local communities and 
the communities targeted by the environmental justice movement 
to be given a real voice. Imposing a radical environmental 
agenda has real consequences for our American families. We need 
a wide variety of opinions and the presence of diversity of 
thought.
    What does this look like in practice? It means all sides of 
an issue are heard. Environmental policy decisions should not 
be made in an echo chamber, where everyone already agrees on an 
outcome. Diversity of thought means that, although an 
environmental group wages a national campaign to oppose energy 
development, the voice of the local community members on all 
sides of the issue are considered and respected. In practice, 
it means the real-life economic and local benefits of energy 
development have equal weight in the decision-making process.
    But a commitment to diversity of thought requires follow-
through. That is what has been lacking in this Administration 
and what is missing in this usual exercise of confirmation 
bias. Our witness today, Mr. Freeland, will share firsthand 
experience of how the Biden administration refused to include 
the Navajo Nation in important policy discussions regarding 
land use in the Chaco Canyon area of New Mexico, directly 
impacting Navajo landowners.
    The Biden administration has disregarded the personal 
property rights of Navajo allottees. In fact, even though 
Interior Secretary Haaland traveled all the way to New Mexico 
to announce a mineral withdrawal, she never took the time to 
meet with or consult the allottees whose mineral rights would 
be impacted. That is not equity or inclusivity. And the Biden 
administration's decision surely did not account for any 
diversity of thought. The result simply does not seem just.
    If we are serious about achieving more diverse and 
inclusive environmental policies, we must ensure that the 
communities impacted by those decisions are given a seat at the 
table.
    With that, I yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Westerman. Thank you 
for your comments. Let me recognize myself for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    The Chairman. I want to thank all of you for being here 
today. I want to thank the witnesses for contributing their 
expertise and perspectives on this very important conversation 
about the need to advance justice, equity, diversity, and 
inclusion, or JEDI, into environmental policymaking.
    Since the inception of America's mainstream environmental 
movement, it has generally been dominated by male, White, 
affluent leadership, and initially as the primary constituency. 
So, early conservation efforts in this country were rooted in a 
troubling ideology of racism and colonialism, a legacy that 
weighs down efforts to address the most pressing environmental 
issues we face as a country and as a world.
    When I first got elected to Congress and I asked to be on 
this Resources Committee--a Committee that not only do I enjoy 
working on, but it is something that I have a passion for--
there were a lot of questions as to why I would want to be on a 
Resources Committee, when I should be on a Committee that would 
affect my community, or communities of color, having to do with 
health care, civil rights, or education.
    I have a strong interest in that. I have been involved at 
all levels with the Education and Workforce Committee since my 
tenure in Congress. Yet, the stereotype was that I should only 
focus on that, because the other issue was the predominant 
issue of someone else.
    I mean, these preconceptions and stereotypes about people 
of color, whether they are Members of Congress or not, have 
prevented policymakers from achieving better environmental and 
public health outcomes just because communities were not 
present.
    But on this Committee, there has been great progress, and 
since becoming Chair, and formerly Ranking Member, this 
Committee has held hearings to examine barriers and solutions 
to advancing JEDI in Federal environmental agencies and agency 
policymaking. The Committee also has intentionally solicited 
and included more diverse perspectives on the legislative 
process through either witnesses, or through expertise that we 
have recruited to present to this Committee as we make our 
environmental laws more equitable and more comprehensive.
    But laws and policies are not created in a vacuum. Many 
actors affect the outcomes. And non-governmental organizations 
and the foundations that fund them often play a pivotal role in 
policy development, as does the development community, the 
extraction industry, the energy corporations, the gas and oil 
companies, and the mining conglomerates that continue to have 
an outsized influence on the policymaking, on the emphasis and 
the priorities of policymaking, and who is at the table and who 
is not at the table. Their influence cannot be underestimated.
    And as we go forward, that influence requires oversight as 
well as does past practices and the current snapshot of where 
we are at with our primary agency of jurisdiction, which is the 
Department of the Interior. Where are they at in this snapshot, 
in terms of JEDI, in terms of inclusion, in terms of diversity?
    And we will see that that pattern is also an internal 
pattern. So, the oversight will be about that snapshot, but it 
will also be about what are the plans, actions, timeline for 
beginning to address the need to be more integrated, more 
inclusive, and have diverse voices available to guide general 
environmental policy.
    The environmental policies that this Committee legislates 
and the Federal agencies under that jurisdiction can only 
benefit from having a deep understanding and a commitment to 
JEDI.
    Here in the Committee, we have also come to the principal 
conclusion that we have significant benefits in our legislative 
process. Yet, for decades, many mainstream organizations have 
excluded the voices of those who are most impacted. And I agree 
with the Ranking Member--the communities most impacted, those 
that have disproportionately been put aside and not brought 
into the process or been part of the process, those very same 
communities are seeking our help.
    This results in policy solutions that fail to meet or gain 
the support of most of the marginalized communities across this 
country, whether it is rural America, urban America, coastal 
America, plains America, Southwest America, those communities, 
Indigenous America, don't feel included and feel more 
marginalized. So, a failure to advance JEDI into the mainstream 
environmental movement, into the agency itself, has severely 
limited Congress' ability to meet its goals in addressing this 
environmental crisis before us, and we have lost time, money, 
and, in some cases, lives.
    It is clear that the mainstream environmental movement's 
traditional strategy risks losing relevance and impact as our 
nation becomes more diverse and our communities are 
increasingly challenged and ravaged by climate change.
    Many mainstream organizations have made significant strides 
in the past decades in advancing JEDI in recent years. However, 
work remains, and we have very little time to waste.
    The moral case of pursuing this just, equitable, diverse, 
and inclusive environmental policy should be obvious. But the 
pragmatic case is new to many. It is seen as something foreign, 
something attacking something. On the contrary, it is an 
inclusive policy. Even the National Academy of Sciences has 
said that we cannot decarbonize the economy without an 
inclusive policy that reaches all.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on 
                           Natural Resources
    Thank you all for being here today.
    I want to thank today's witnesses for contributing their expertise 
and perspectives to this important conversation about the need to 
advance justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion--or JEDI--in 
environmental policymaking.
    Since its inception, America's mainstream environmental movement 
has been dominated by the voices of wealthy, white men.
    Early conservation efforts were frequently rooted in a troubling 
ideology of racism and colonialism--a legacy that continues to weigh 
down efforts to address the most pressing environmental issues of our 
time.
    When I was first elected to Congress, folks didn't understand why I 
would care about conservation or environmental policy.
    There's often a stereotype that Members of Congress that happen to 
be people of color should only concentrate on issues like health care 
or civil rights. In fact, polls consistently show that the strongest 
interest in environmental issues comes from communities of color.
    These preconceptions about what people of color are supposed to 
care about have prevented us as policymakers from achieving better 
environmental and public health outcomes for all.
    Since I became Chair, this Committee has held hearings to examine 
barriers and solutions to advancing JEDI in federal environmental 
agencies and in agency policymaking. The Committee is also 
intentionally soliciting and including more diverse perspectives in the 
legislative process to make our environmental laws work more equitably.
    But laws and policies are not created in a vacuum--many actors 
affect the outcomes, and non-governmental organizations and the 
foundations that fund them often play a pivotal role in policy 
development.
    Environmental policies that this Committee legislates and the 
federal agencies under our jurisdiction stand to benefit from having a 
deep understanding of JEDI.
    Here on the Committee, we have also come to that principled 
conclusion and have seen significant benefits in our legislative 
process. Yet, for decades, mainstream environmental organizations have 
excluded the voices of those who are the most impacted. The very same 
communities they seek to help.
    This results in policy solutions that fail to meet the needs of--or 
gain the support of--the most marginalized among us.
    This failure to advance JEDI in the mainstream environmental 
movement has severely limited Congress' abilities to meet its 
legislative goals in addressing environmental crises and has resulted 
in lost time, money and, in some cases, the loss of lives.
    It is clear that the mainstream environmental movement's 
traditional strategy risks losing relevance and impact as our nation 
becomes more diverse and our communities are increasingly ravaged by 
climate change.
    Many mainstream environmental organizations have made strides 
toward advancing JEDI in recent years. However, much work remains--and 
we do not have time to waste.
    The moral case for pursuing just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive 
environmental policy should be obvious. But the pragmatic case is new 
to many. Even the National Academy of Sciences has said that we cannot 
decarbonize the economy without a more inclusive policy approach.
    Federal environmental policies should be developed in a way that 
includes and values the input of those in impacted communities. It is 
my hope that today's conversation will help us all to better understand 
how policymaking on environmental concerns can be improved.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. With that, before introducing today's 
witnesses, I will remind----
    Mr. Cohen. Would the Chairman yield?
    The Chairman. Let me introduce the witnesses, and we will 
go into that, Mr. Cohen. I don't think I have any time, but 
please let me give you a few seconds, if you don't mind.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. OK, let me proceed. Before introducing 
today's witnesses, I will remind non-administrative witnesses 
that they are encouraged to participate in a survey that will 
be provided by the staff.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire written statement will appear in the hearing record.
    When you begin, the timer will start. It will turn orange 
when you have 1 minute remaining and red when your time has 
expired. I recommend that Members and witnesses joining 
remotely use stage view so that they may pin the timer on the 
screen.
    After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute 
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
    I will also allow the entire panel to testify before 
turning to the Members for questions to the witnesses.

    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Keya Chatterjee, the Executive 
Director of the U.S. Climate Action Network.
    Ms. Chatterjee, you are recognized. The time is yours and 
you have 5 minutes. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF KEYA CHATTERJEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. CLIMATE 
                 ACTION NETWORK, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much, Chair Grijalva. Good 
morning. My name is Keya Chatterjee. I use she/her pronouns, 
and I am located on unceded Piscataway and Nacotchtank land 
known as Washington, DC. I am the Executive Director of the 
U.S. Climate Action Network, USCAN. Thank you so much for this 
opportunity.
    Our position at USCAN is that the Federal Government, large 
mainstream environmental organizations, and foundation grant-
making processes have been exclusionary to Black and Brown 
communities. This exclusion has resulted in failed attempts to 
pass durable climate policy because policymakers have ignored 
the very people who have an organized community behind them.
    For example, my own experience working at a large, White-
led NGO was that while there was a focus on diversity in the 
workforce, there was a lack of retention because of a lack of 
commitment to justice. A true focus on justice corrects past 
harms and mitigates future harms. Our intent in providing this 
testimony is to influence grant-giving and the Federal 
policymaking process so that Black, Indigenous, and Brown 
communities have full inclusion in decision-making processes. 
It is only through agency being returned to Black and Brown 
communities that people will have the access and power 
necessary to implement climate solutions.
    The barriers to participation in policy processes are 
significant. One huge one is jargon. Sometimes the most harmful 
policies are spoken about in the most opaque terms. Members of 
USCAN, for example, have had to suffer pollution and enormous 
costs of carbon capture and storage facility in Mississippi. 
And there are threats of more of these facilities in 
communities that do not want them in Louisiana and across the 
Southeast surrounding Black and Brown communities. These 
proposals would be paired with a massive network of compressed 
CO2 pipelines in every community that has worked so 
hard to fight back against pipelines scarring their lands.
    The effort, however, is not called compressed 
CO2 pipelines to keep coal pollution in Black and 
Brown communities. What does the Federal Government call it 
instead? It is called 45Q. What does 45Q mean, exactly? Well, 
you are meant to feel dumb if you don't know, and the answer is 
truly irrelevant for communities that are being poisoned.
    This kind of meaningless jargon is no accident. It emerges 
from a culture that does not value community organizers and the 
language that we use within our own communities.
    It doesn't have to be that way. Changes are needed for 
Federal grantmaking and policymaking. The Federal grant process 
is lengthy, time consuming, and onerous. Non-profits without 
resources are at a significant disadvantage. Knowing this, 
USCAN's own grant program process is intentionally set up to 
take the applicant less than 3 hours, total. I will share a few 
of our top recommendations for grant giving, based on our 
experience in adaptively improving grants.
    First, No jargon, of course.
    Second, require 60 percent representation of women of 
color, BIPOC and vulnerable communities in boards and staff of 
grantor and grantee organizations.
    Next, adopt and operationalize a JEDI checklist that is 
used in all operations.
    Another is to have a maximum annual operating budget cap. 
We use $500,000 as an eligibility requirement for recipients.
    Finally, identify grant and policy programs that result in 
systemic remedies that don't just address an immediate issue. 
For example, don't just address flooding, address the root 
cause of why communities of color were pushed onto vulnerable 
flooding lands and address how the climate crisis is playing 
out in communities that are repeatedly flooding.
    The climate crisis would not exist if not for a system of 
White supremacy in which we operate, meaning a system designed 
so that people of European descent have better outcomes. Where 
would you place a poisonous coal-fired power plant, an 
exploding pipeline, or a polluting biomass facility if 
policymakers were not willing to sacrifice communities of 
color?
    These facilities are regularly rejected by wealthy, White 
communities, so if not for White supremacy, we would have 
transitioned to solar, wind, and batteries long ago and before 
my time. The reality is that White supremacy and colonialism 
began the process of attacking and dismantling Indigenous ways 
of living that were connected to the land and that can sustain 
a stable climate on Earth.
    In closing, I would like to reiterate that having this 
hearing is extremely important in the context we are as a 
nation and a global community in reference to the climate 
crisis. We are grappling with a history of systemic impact on 
communities of color that has never been addressed, and the 
perpetuation of injustice. There are significantly better 
alternatives that have been tried and tested, and I hope the 
examples and recommendations that I have shared illuminate that 
and play a part in achieving a paradigm shift that is long 
overdue.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Chatterjee follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Keya Chatterjee, Executive Director, US Climate 
                             Action Network
I. Introduction

    Good morning, my name is Keya Chatterjee and I am the Executive 
Director at US Climate Action Network (USCAN). Thank you for this 
opportunity. I am here to share our membership's (190+ organizations) 
insights on how Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) is 
operationalized at environmental non-profits and grantmaking 
foundations.
    Our position as a network is that the federal government, large 
mainstream environmental organizations and foundation grant-making 
processes have been exclusionary to black and brown communities. This 
exclusion has resulted in failed attempts to pass durable climate 
policy because policy makers have ignored the very people who have an 
organized community behind them. Attempts at corrective measures have 
been applied in response to this fact, but the interventions are 
stopgaps, not the systemic change needed to ensure real equity. For 
example, my own experience working at a large white-led NGO was that 
while there was a focus on diversity in the workforce, there was a lack 
of retention because after people of color were brought in, the work of 
the organization did not change to reflect a commitment to justice and 
equity. It is insufficient to address only diversity and inclusion and 
not establish programming focused on justice and equity. Large NGOs and 
foundations must commit to self transformation. A true focus on justice 
corrects past harms and mitigates future harms.
    Our intent by providing this testimony is to influence federal 
grant giving and the federal policy making process so that Black, 
Indigenous and Brown communities have full inclusion in decision making 
processes. It is only through agency being returned to Black and brown 
communities that people will have the access and power necessary to 
implement climate solutions.
    The climate crisis would not exist if not for a system of white 
supremacy in which we operate, meaning a system designed so that people 
of European descent have better outcomes compared to others. Where 
would you place a poisonous coal-fired power plant, an exploding 
pipeline, or a polluting biomass facility if policy makers were not 
willing to sacrifice Indigenous, Black and brown communities? These 
facilities are regularly rejected by wealthy white communities, so if 
not for white supremacy, we would have transitioned to solar, wind, and 
batteries long ago, before my time, when President Carter was trying to 
get us to wear sweaters in winter and move us to energy independence. 
Long before that, white supremacy and colonialism began the process of 
attacking and dismantling indigenous ways of living that were connected 
to the land and that could sustain a stable climate on Earth.
    USCAN is on a journey of self transformation and is constantly 
working to put justice and equity at the heart of our work. We are in 
our seventh year of a member-led grant program. The purpose of this 
program is to build grassroots power for climate action, while 
increasing trust and alignment among our members. To ensure this 
program is equitable, transparent, and embodies our JEDI values, grant 
decisions are made by a review committee of USCAN members. 
Traditionally, most that serve on the review committee are from 
grassroots organizations; this past grant cycle everyone was from a 
grassroots organization.
    The Federal Grant Process is lengthy, time-consuming, and onerous. 
It favors nonprofits that have been given grants consistently or with 
dedicated staff: those that already have the infrastructure in place to 
tackle it. Nonprofits without those resources are at a significant 
disadvantage. Knowing this, we have removed anything that is truly not 
informing the review team's decision. Our program allows grant 
submissions in varying formats: handwritten, videos, powerpoint, etc.; 
line-item budgets are not requested. We trust those that are receiving 
the funds know the best way to spend the funds. The entire application 
process is intentionally set up to take the applicant less than 3 hours 
total, and the Review Team Rubric is openly shared with all applicants.
    Our grants program is responsive to the organization's needs 
throughout the grant period. We have multi-year grants for operating 
support or capacity-building, and more flexible agreements regarding 
modifications. In addition, we collaborate with our grantee to design 
evaluation and reporting processes that support the work being done, 
rather than create extra burdens.
    Part of the transformation of USCAN has also been a commitment to 
bringing Black and Indigenous leadership into positions of access and 
power in international and federal policy making. Our members tell us 
that while for the first time they are being consulted on policy more 
frequently, they feel largely tokenized and do not yet feel influence 
over policy. The barriers to participation are similar to the barriers 
to federal grants. The language being used is not the language used to 
organize in communities. Sometimes the most harmful policies are spoken 
about in the most opaque terms. Members of USCAN, for example, have had 
to suffer the pollution and the enormous costs of a carbon capture and 
storage facility in Mississippi, and there are threats of more of these 
facilities that communities do not want in Louisiana and across the 
southeast, surrounding Black communities. This effort is an expansion 
and extension of poisonous facilities in communities of color that will 
be paired with a massive network of compressed CO2 pipelines in every 
community that has worked so hard to fight back against pipelines 
scarring their communities. That's not what it's called though, what it 
is called is ``45Q''. This kind of meaningless jargon is no accident 
and emerges from a culture that does not value community organizers and 
the language that they use within their communities.
II. Content

    USCAN is the US ``node'' of a global network, the Climate Action 
Network, which makes formal interventions at the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change Conferences of Parties, or COPs. 
Our experience in the UN process has been that in order for people of 
color to gain access, we have had to proactively ensure that badges are 
prioritized for people of color and that our members are able to vote 
on who will represent them at international meetings. We have also 
observed that the barriers to policy access can be ameliorated, but it 
has to be through proactive work since there are often long standing 
relationships between white-led organizations and policy makers. 
Putting JEDI at the heart of our work means prioritizing establishing 
new, authentic relationships with people of color. Based on our 
experience moving toward better representation internationally, our top 
three recommendations for federal policy makers are:

  1.  Ensure that the people most affected by the policy are included 
            in the decision making process by tracking and sharing who 
            is coming to meetings.

  2.  Keep a `progressive stack' in meetings, ensuring that the people 
            being called on for questions or put on the agenda to speak 
            are people reflecting the experiences of communities who 
            have been made vulnerable through policy.

  3.  Use language that could be understood in a community meeting and 
            avoid jargon and acronyms.

    Similar interventions are needed for federal grant making. Several 
of our members have had first hand experience applying for federal 
grant programs. The experiences were demoralizing and characterized by 
a lengthy application process (100 pages long in one instance); with 
very technical jargon that is difficult to understand and contradictory 
application instructions. Additionally, many of these application 
processes and platforms are inaccessible to grassroots organizations 
interested in applying because they require a proposal submission that 
is tailored to the technical requirements of a specific federal policy 
rather than based on the actual needs/reality of the grantee. This is 
difficult to navigate for small organizations with limited staff 
bandwidth, and little to no access to policy experts. Finally and most 
importantly, many of our members are increasingly getting access to 
funding tables and decision making spaces on policy, but that access 
does not translate to influence. BIPOC voices and leadership are more 
often than not tokenized and serve merely as window dressing to create 
the impression of diverse representation.

    USCAN as a network, has evolved and made improvements over several 
years to ensure that our internal processes, including around grant 
making, are transparent, democratic, and embody our JEDI values. Our 
top ten recommendations, based upon our own experience in adaptively 
improving are:

  1.  Require 60% representation of women of color, BIPOC and 
            vulnerable communities in boards and staff of grantor 
            organizations (both public and private)

  2.  Adopt and operationalize a JEDI checklist as a tool of 
            accountability to assess organizational equity, with the 
            power to make changes based upon checklist results 
            exercised at the director level that results in adaptive 
            improvements and systemic change

  3.  Have maximum annual operating budget caps e.g. $500,000 as an 
            eligibility requirement for recipients

  4.  Use application language that the community uses, not jargon

  5.  Reserve 40% of grant programs to groups who have never received 
            funding

  6.  Identify grant and policy programs that result in systemic 
            remedies, instead of just addressing the problem as it is 
            manifesting at the moment (e.g. don't just address 
            flooding, address the root cause of why people of color 
            were pushed to vulnerable lands and address how the climate 
            crisis is playing out in communities that are repeatedly 
            flooding )

  7.  Eliminate the current filter for eligibility as a grantee partner 
            that is based on a very narrow set of criteria that favors 
            large, established institutions

  8.  Make sure that peer review panels include community organizers 
            who organize in Black, Indigenous and brown communities

  9.  Lower barriers to applying for grants and increase the reach 
            (shorter proposals, more outreach)

 10.  Invest in collaborations where there are enough resources for 
            every partner

III. Closing

    In closing, I would like to reiterate that having this hearing is 
extremely important in the context of where we are as a nation and 
global community in reference to the climate crisis. We are grappling 
with a history of systemic impact on BIPOC communities that has never 
been addressed and the perpetuation of injustice. There are 
significantly better alternatives that have been tried and tested, and 
I hope the example and recommendations I have shared illuminate that 
and play a part in achieving the paradigm shift that is long overdue. 
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. Let 
me now turn to recognizing Mr. Abdul Dosunmu, Campaign Manager 
for the Climate Funders Justice Pledge at the Donors of Color 
Network.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF ABDUL DOSUNMU, CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CLIMATE FUNDERS 
     JUSTICE PLEDGE, DONORS OF COLOR NETWORK, DALLAS, TEXAS

    Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Chairman Grijalva and 
Ranking Member Westerman, for this opportunity to address 
Members of the House on this important topic. Addressing and 
mitigating the impacts of climate change is the single most 
important issue we face as humanity.
    I have a deep background in racial justice, having served 
in the Obama administration at the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and having founded a voting rights organization 
called the Young Black Lawyers' Organizing Coalition. And I 
bring that same racial justice lens to the work I do now to 
help shift the center of gravity in climate philanthropy. And I 
am pleased to be here today to talk about the Donors of Color 
Network and the Climate Funders Justice Pledge.
    The Donors of Color Network is the first ever cross-racial 
community of high net worth donors of color and movement 
leaders committed to building the collective power of people of 
color to achieve racial justice and shift the center of gravity 
in both politics and philanthropy.
    One year ago, we launched the Climate Funders Justice 
Pledge to shift the center of gravity and philanthropy toward 
racial and economic justice by challenging the nation's top 
climate funders to commit publicly to greater transparency and 
to giving at least 30 percent of their U.S. climate funding to 
the BIPOC-led justice groups that have an outsized impact in 
beating back the climate crisis.
    To date, we have spoken to 36 of the top 40 climate funders 
in the United States. So far, 26 funders have taken the pledge, 
including 8 funders who are in the top 40 in terms of assets. 
In just 1 year, we project that tens of millions of dollars in 
new resources will have been shifted to BIPOC-led 
organizations.
    But there are still far too many funders sitting on the 
sidelines, and that has to change. A New School Study, in 
collaboration with Building Equity and Alignment, found that of 
the $1.34 billion awarded to 12 national environmental funders, 
only 1.3 percent of it goes to BIPOC-led justice groups. And 
1.3 percent isn't just a moral failing--it is an ineffective 
and losing strategy.
    No winning social movement has succeeded without the 
leadership and guidance of a multiracial coalition. BIPOC 
leaders and organizations are the driving forces behind some of 
the most expansive climate policy in the country, whether it is 
Indigenous organizers disrupting billions of tons of greenhouse 
gas emissions annually, or BIPOC organizations driving forward 
the New Jersey and California environmental justice laws that 
preceded President Biden's Justice40 Initiative. And that is 
despite receiving a grossly inequitable share of funding.
    Moreover, even though we know that the impacts of climate 
change hit low-income communities and communities of color 
first and worst, most climate efforts are primarily focused on 
strategies that prioritize the wealthy. That is because 
philanthropy is a space that largely lacks meaningful diversity 
in its leadership ranks. As a result, the funder community has 
inherent implicit biases in grantmaking that historically have 
meant that communities of color are overlooked and under-
resourced.
    We must push these foundations beyond their biases and 
their excuses. Funders will say they don't know how to find 
BIPOC-led organizations. Others will say they are not aware of 
BIPOC-led academic policy perspectives and solutions. In 
response, we have compiled an expansive list of BIPOC-led 
organizations and movement networks and developed the most 
comprehensive compilation of U.S.-based BIPOC PhDs.
    Imagine if the BIPOC-led organizations that are leading the 
fight against the climate crisis were actually funded at the 
same level as their White counterparts. Imagine if they had the 
resources to export their work at scale. Imagine if our climate 
movement was actually holistic instead of grossly 
disproportionate. With your help, we can shine a light on the 
solutions, like getting the largest funders to be transparent 
about how inclusive their grantmaking is by taking the Climate 
Funders Justice Pledge.
    In closing, we asked the leadership of the top foundations 
one simple question: ``Do you think 1.3 percent is a winning 
number?'' And no one says yes.
    Change is possible. I and the Donors of Color Network would 
love to be a resource for you as you work to build a winning 
climate strategy that harnesses the power of BIPOC leaders and 
tips the scale toward true justice and progress. Thank you so 
much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dosunmu follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Abdul Dosunmu, representing the Climate Funders 
             Justice Pledge of the Donors of Color Network
INTRODUCTION

    Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman for this 
opportunity to address members of the House on this important topic. 
Addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change is the single 
most important issue we face as humanity.
    I have a deep background in racial justice work. Since my time 
growing up in Dallas, Texas, I have long been invested in developing 
solutions to the uneven opportunity landscape that hinders our society 
from reaching its full potential. I served in the Obama administration 
at the U.S. Department of Transportation supporting the Department's 
work to promote equity in transportation. I am active in the voting 
rights movement through an organization I founded called the Young 
Black Lawyers' Organizing Coalition, or YBLOC. And I bring the same 
lens to the work I do now to help shift the center of gravity in 
climate philanthropy.
    I am pleased to be here to talk about the Donors of Color Network 
and their Climate Funders Justice Pledge. Time is running out, and we 
need all hands on deck to win on climate. That means it's critical to 
better and further resource BIPOC-led, justice-focused organizations 
fighting on the frontlines--whether around President Biden's Justice40 
Initiative or our own Climate Funders Justice Pledge. The private and 
public sector must work together to build a winning climate movement 
rooted in justice.

WHO IS THE DONORS OF COLOR NETWORK?

    The Donors of Color Network (DOCN) is the first ever cross-racial 
community of high net worth donors of color and movement leaders 
committed to building the collective power of people of color to 
achieve racial justice and shift the center of gravity in both politics 
and philanthropy.

WHAT IS THE CLIMATE FUNDERS JUSTICE PLEDGE?

    One year ago, we launched the Climate Funders Justice Pledge 
(CFJP), a climate justice campaign, to shift the center of gravity in 
philanthropy toward racial and economic justice, and challenge the 
nation's top climate funders to commit publicly to greater transparency 
and to give at least 30% of their U.S. climate funding to the BIPOC-led 
justice groups who have an outsized impact in beating back the climate 
crisis.
    The CFJP doesn't ask for perfection. It asks for unflinching 
accountability and resourcing to people of color doing winning climate 
work. We aim to drive hundreds of millions of dollars to BIPOC-led 
organizations over the course of the pledge.

WHAT IS CFJP'S IMPACT TO DATE?

    To date, we have spoken to 36 of the top 40 climate funders in the 
United States. Since our launch, some of the largest climate funders in 
the country have stepped up to take the pledge--like inaugural pledgers 
the Kresge Foundation and the Pisces Foundation. So far 26 funders have 
taken the pledge, including 8 funders who are in the top 40 in terms of 
assets. Every foundation that signs on chips away at the lack of 
transparency that surrounds philanthropy and begins to shift climate 
philanthropy toward greater racial and economic justice.
    In just one year, we project that tens of millions in new resources 
will have been shifted to BIPOC-led organizations. But there's far too 
many funders still sitting on the sidelines--many of whom likely think 
resourcing BIPOC-led organizations is a tangential concern rather than 
an essential piece of their climate strategy. That has to change.

WHY IS IT CRITICAL TO MOVE RESOURCES TO BIPOC-LED ORGANIZATIONS IN 
        ORDER TO HAVE A WINNING CLIMATE STRATEGY?

    A New School Study, in collaboration with Building Equity and 
Alignment, found that of the $1.34 billion awarded to 12 national 
environmental funders, only 1.3% goes to BIPOC-led, justice-focused 
groups.
    1.3% isn't just a moral failing--it's an ineffective and losing 
strategy. Philanthropy funnels countless resources into the same big 
organizations and strategies, but we haven't moved the needle far 
enough. It's time to change.
    We will not win on climate if we leave the power and expertise of 
leaders and communities of color on the table.
    No winning social movement has succeeded without the leadership and 
guidance of a multiracial coalition. BIPOC leaders and organizations 
have an outsized impact in advancing winning climate policies, 
programs, and projects, at the local, state, and national level. They 
are the driving force behind some of the most expansive climate policy 
in the country--policy that's critical in tackling climate change--as 
well as some of the biggest wins against Big Oil.
    If you don't know the movement leaders of color in the climate 
movement and the vital role they have played, it's because funding also 
dictates which stories are heard. But the successes are there and they 
are incredible.
    Whether it's Indigenous organizers disrupting billions of tons of 
greenhouse gas emissions annually or BIPOC organizations driving 
forward the foremost environmental laws--the New Jersey and California 
environmental justice laws that preceded President Biden's Justice40 
Initiative--our most impactful climate wins are largely led by people 
of color. And that's despite receiving a grossly inequitable share of 
funding.
    Moreover, even though we know that the impacts of climate change 
hit low income communities and communities of color first and worst, 
most climate efforts are primarily focused on strategies that 
prioritize the wealthy.
    The climate movement as it stands generally focuses on a top down 
approach, but if the goal is to save lives and our planet--now and in 
the future--then we need to center those on the frontlines of climate 
disasters. BIPOC justice-focused organizations and leaders are the ones 
doing that work at scale--and it will be desperately needed in the 
years to come.

BARRIERS TO ADVANCING JEDI?

    Philanthropy is a space that largely lacks meaningful diversity in 
its leadership ranks. As a result, the funder community has inherent, 
implicit biases in grant-making that, historically, have meant that 
communities of color are overlooked and under-resourced.
    We must push these foundations beyond their biases. Failing to fund 
BIPOC-led organizations will leave us scrambling to address climate 
change.
    The CFJP is a hopeful campaign and we aim to support any pledger 
who is looking to be a part of this change, whether that funder is far 
below our 30% threshold or well above it.
    By and large, the concerns we hear from apprehensive funders can be 
directly tied to ``traditional'' or ``established'' funding practices 
that limit the scope of their climate response.
    Funders will say that they don't know how to find and connect with 
BIPOC-led organizations or grantees that are outside of their typical 
funding rotation. Some say they're not aware of BIPOC-led academic 
perspectives and policy solutions. Others say they're not sure how to 
collect the funding data we ask for in pursuit of transparency.
    In response, we have compiled an expansive list of BIPOC-led 
organizations and movement networks, both national and regional in 
focus; developed the most comprehensive compilation of U.S.-based BIPOC 
PhDs, who are some of the foremost guiding lights in our climate 
crisis; and created easy to follow templates for funders to collect 
their data that literally can be done in minutes.
    These hesitations often stem from the belief that BIPOC-led groups 
are not an essential part of our fight to combat climate change. That 
is misguided and harmful.
    Funneling the same hundreds of millions of dollars into the same 
climate organizations every year is not producing results or building a 
winning movement.
    BIPOC-led organizations are the ones who are standing up to the 
fossil fuel industry and shutting down dangerous power plants and 
pipelines across the country. Imagine if they were actually spoken to, 
engaged, funded and supported at the same level as their white 
counterparts. Imagine if they had the resources to export their work at 
scale. Imagine if our climate movement was actually holistic instead of 
grossly disproportionate.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

    With your help in shining a light on the solutions--like getting 
the largest funders to be transparent about how inclusive their 
grantmaking is by taking the Climate Funders Justice Pledge--we can 
ensure those with most at stake are able to scale the already excellent 
work that they have been doing.

CONCLUSION

    The Donors of Color Network realized that the public statements on 
diversity, equity and inclusion of the largest funders did not match 
their funding. We wrote to the leadership of all of the top foundations 
and asked: do you think 1.3% is a winning number? No one says yes.
    Again, we called on funders to do two things--be transparent, and 
pledge to be part of the solution. This means honestly answering ``What 
percentage of investments have gone to organizations where communities 
of color decide the agenda and are focused on justice?'' and scaling US 
grantmaking to BIPOC-led, justice focused organizations to 30%.
    Change is possible. But we need speed and scale for that, and we 
need public/private partnership. I and the Donors of Color Network 
would love to be a resource for you to help expand knowledge of 
solutions needed on the ground to complement your work building a 
winning climate strategy. You have the privilege of sitting in 
decision-making seats. You have the power to bring visibility and 
resources to BIPOC leaders pioneering amazing solutions. Harnessing 
that power, is how we tip the scale toward true justice and real 
progress.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
testimony. Now let me turn to and recognize the Honorable Mark 
A. Freeland, Delegate to the Navajo Nation Council.
    Sir, welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MARK A. FREELAND, NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL DELEGATE, 
CROWNPOINT / TSE'LI'AHI / NAHODISH-GISH / BECENTI / WHITEROCK / 
LAKE VALLEY / HUERFANO / NAGEEZI CHAPTERS, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA

    Mr. Freeland. Thank you, House Committee on Natural 
Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member Bruce 
Westerman, and the Subcommittee members of the Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. My name 
is Mark Freeland, and I am a Council Delegate on the 24th 
Navajo Nation Council, which is the legislative body of the 
Navajo Nation Government. As a formal introduction, by our 
Navajo custom, my maternal clan is Totsohnii. My paternal clan 
is the Kinyaa'aanii. My maternal grandfather clan is 
Tsenjikini, and my paternal grandfather clan is Tsenabahilnii. 
My clans define me as a Navajo and identify me to the ties of 
my people and to our great Navajo Nation.
    As a member of the 24th Navajo Nation Council, the 
governing body of the Navajo Nation, I am honored and 
privileged to be a Member of the Council's Natural Resources 
and Development Committee, which regulates oversight authority 
over all of the Navajo Nation's water, land, environmental 
protection, cultural resources, minerals, and economic 
development, among other areas.
    The Navajo Nation is comprised of approximately 399,594 
Navajo citizens and covers 27,000 square miles of land in Utah, 
New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. This area is subdivided into 
110 chapters, local governments that represent local voices of 
our people, and work on the local level to see to the needs of 
our people, as well.
    I am here today to testify on behalf of the Navajo people 
who have lived and still do live in and around the greater 
Chaco area since time immemorial. Their voices have been lost 
in the public discussions about oil and gas development 
activities and the discussions regarding a buffer zone around 
Chaco Canyon National Historic Park.
    The White House has stated, as did Congress, that the rule 
would not apply to individual Indian allotments, or to minerals 
within the area owned by private, state, or tribal entities. 
However, in reality, the rule would have a devastating impact, 
because the indirect impacts would make the allottee land 
worthless from the standpoint of energy extraction.
    In attempts to negotiate with our congressional 
representatives, the Navajo Nation Council passed legislation 
that agreed to reduce the size of the 10-mile buffer zone to 5 
miles as a compromise to reduce the impact toward our Navajo 
allottees. We are willing to continue these discussions with 
the Federal Government, but announcing this initiative at a 
White House Tribal Nations Summit, knowing that the Navajo 
Nation Council and local government entities have passed 
resolutions in opposition, was an unwarranted affront to the 
Navajo Nation.
    Navajos have lived in the Southwest since time immemorial 
and as Navajo people, our clans and our ceremonial history is 
tied to Chaco Canyon and the landscape. Much of our life-ways 
begin in the greater Chaco region, and our Navajo people are 
concerned about their life-ways, ceremonial use areas, plant 
and mineral gathering areas, offering places, historic burials, 
as well as archeological sites throughout the region, which are 
still in use today.
    Recently, Secretary Haaland issued a proposed mineral 
withdrawal on Federal lands from any development. The BLM, the 
Bureau of Land Management, published in the Federal Register on 
January 6, 2022, the proposed withdrawal of 351,479 acres of 
Federal lands from development for a 20-year term. We have some 
really strong concerns regarding that Secretary Haaland did not 
consult with the Navajo Nation before making this decision on 
Federal action.
    In the announcement for the administrative decision, Ms. 
Haaland was quoted as stating that the decision was based on 
the cultural resources investigation studies that tribes were 
awarded to conduct within the Chaco Canyon region. The Navajo 
Nation has yet to complete these ethnographic studies to date.
    The Navajo Nation sent a letter to her and to President 
Biden in December 2021 detailing our concerns regarding these 
activities in the Eastern Navajo Agency. As of today, we have 
not gotten a response from President Biden or Secretary 
Haaland.
    Let me remind you, the greater Chacoan landscape is a part 
of Navajo Nation lands and individual allotments. It is our 
front yard. It is our home. Secretary Haaland has completely 
ignored and disregarded the executive directives given by 
President Biden regarding tribal consultation on Federal 
actions and decisions.
    Withdrawal may affect development on Navajo trust lands and 
individual allotments, in particular, improving infrastructure 
to access minerals in these lands. The Department of the 
Interior did not provide adequate notice nor offer consultation 
with the Navajo Nation prior to making this administrative 
decision.
    Most importantly, we ask the Department of the Interior, 
the BLM, the BIA, and the Biden-Harris administration to 
respect Navajo cultural connections to this landscape. Navajo 
people have lived in the Chaco region for innumerable 
generations and must be consulted in the same regards, give 
consent regarding development of mineral resources and the 
impact to their quality of life, and engage in meaningful 
government-to-government consultation with the Navajo Nation 
and its people.
    In closing, myself and the 24th Navajo Nation Council 
respectfully and rightfully request with collaborative efforts 
and extend an invitation to the House Natural Resources 
Committee to participate in a field hearing on the Navajo 
Nation, the Eastern Navajo Agency, and located in the Nageezi 
Chapter. This hearing would assist in the ongoing 
collaborations of the Navajo Nation and your leadership in 
regards to hearing the Navajo Nation allottees and their voices 
toward these matters.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, and God bless each and every one 
of you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Freeland follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Mark Freeland, Council Delegate to the 24th 
   Navajo Nation Council and Member of the Resources and Development 
                               Committee
    Thank you House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva and 
Ranking Member Bruce Westerman, and Subcommittee Members of the Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. My name is Mark 
Freeland and I am a Council Delegate on the 24th Navajo Nation 
Council--which is the legislative branch of the Navajo Nation 
Government. As a formal introduction by our Navajo custom, my Maternal 
Clan is Totsohnii, Paternal Clan is Kinyaa'aanii, my Maternal 
Grandfather clan is Tsenjikini and my Paternal Grandfather clan is 
Tsenabahilnii. My clans define me as a Navajo and identify me to my 
ties to my people and to the Navajo Nation.
    As a member of the 24th Navajo Nation Council, the governing body 
of the Navajo Nation, I am honored and privileged to be a Member of the 
Council's Resources and Development Committee, which regulates 
oversight authority over all The Navajo Nation's water, land, 
environmental protection, cultural resources, minerals, and economic 
development, among many other areas. The Navajo Nation is comprised of 
approximately 399,594 Navajo citizens on over 27,000 square miles of 
land covering Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. This area is 
subdivided into 110 Chapter governments that represent the local voice 
of our people and work on the local level to see to the needs of our 
people.
    As leaders of the Navajo Nation, we take great pride in our 
cultural connections to our land and our people. I am here to testify 
on behalf of the Navajo people who have lived and still do live in and 
around the greater Chaco area since time immemorial. Their voices have 
been lost in the public discussions about oil and gas development 
activities, and the discussions regarding a buffer zone around Chaco 
Culture National Historical Park. Collectively leadership from the 
Navajo Nation is equally concerned that environmental organizations 
have made a point to target Chaco Culture National Historical Park for 
political or financial gain without listening and taking into account 
the people that are from the region. Chaco Canyon is located on Navajo 
Nation lands. As leaders of the Navajo Nation we have come to 
understand that part of the impetus of Chaco Canyon protection came 
from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). They have been 
one of the primary environmental advocacy group for National Parks and 
for years have launched a campaign calling for buffers around parks 
called ``Spoiled Parks: the 12 National Parks Most Threatened by Oil 
and Gas Development'' (the ``oil'' is capitalized by them in the 
title). NPCA's website features Chaco at the top of their list: 
www.npca.org/spoiledparks.
    Consequently, Congress for the past 6 years have considered 
multiple proposals to create a buffer zone around the Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park, at the additional request of the All-Pueblo 
Council of Governors, but unfortunately, continue to ignore the desires 
of the Navajo people whose lands would actually be impacted by such a 
decision. This issue is important to the Navajo Nation; specifically, 
to our Navajo allotment owners. Again, I want to point out that none of 
these environmental organizations, tribes, State or Congressional 
leaders have taken the time to meet with our people on the Navajo 
Nation, despite repeated requests, letters, and teleconferences.
    There are currently 53 Individual Indian Allotments (IIA 
allotments) leased in the 10-mile buffer zone around Chaco based on the 
latest map proposed in the legislation considered by Congress. These 
allotments generate an average of $6.2 million a year in royalties for 
approximately 5,462 allottees. Many allottees, including Navajo elders, 
rely on this income to meet their daily needs. However, the gravity of 
this decision is much larger as there are 418 unleased allotments 
associated with approximately 16,615 allottees. So, this rule very well 
could impact over 22,000 allottees.
    The White House has stated, as did Congress, that the rule would 
not apply to Individual Indian Allotments or to minerals within the 
area owned by private, state, and Tribal entities. However, in reality, 
the rule would have a devastating impact because the indirect effects 
would make the allottee land worthless from the standpoint of energy 
extraction. For example, the Mancos Shale reservoir lies south of 
Counselor, Huerfano and Nageezi Chapters and north of the Chaco Park. 
To maximize full extraction of the product, a horizontal lateral 
crossing of two to four miles of subsurface may be required. Due to the 
cross jurisdictional land status in Navajo Eastern Agency, a proposed 
horizontal lateral may need to cross federal land. But the Department 
of the Interior has already told us that any horizontal drilling that 
requires access through federal lands would be prohibited under the 
proposed rules.
    In attempts to negotiate with our Congressional representatives, 
the Navajo Nation Council passed legislation that agreed to reduce the 
size of the 10-mile buffer zone to 5 miles to reduce the impact on 
Navajo allottees. We are willing to continue discussions with the 
federal government but announcing this initiative at the White House 
Tribal Nations Summit, knowing that that Navajo Nation Council and 
Local Navajo Government entities have passed resolutions in opposition, 
was an unwarranted affront to the Navajo Nation.
    We are also mystified by the fact that only one listening session 
with 10 allottees was held in July with Assistant Secretary of Indian 
Affairs Bryan Newland as a way to support ``tribal engagement'' in the 
U.S. Department of the Interior's press release issued November 11, 
202l. Even more disturbing is hearing the Department of the Interior 
commit to ``early, robust, interactive, pre-decisional, informative, 
and transparent'' tribal consultation when essentially no tribal 
consultation has been held with critical stakeholders in this case. By 
simply bypassing true and inclusive tribal consultation with the Navajo 
Nation and our Individual Indian Allottees, the Biden-Harris 
Administration is markedly undermining its trust responsibility they 
owe to the Navajo Nation and the 22,000 Individual Indian Allottees 
impacted by this decision.
    To evince respect to us as a sovereign government and people we 
insist Congressional leaders and the Administration not to move forward 
on this initiative without first reaching an agreement with the duly 
elected leaders of those affected by it. We ask that you engage in 
proper tribal consultation before finalizing the proposed BLM land 
withdrawal around Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
Navajo Cultural Ties to Chaco Culture National Historical Park

    Let me tell you a little about the Navajo people. We have deep 
connections, from pre-contact to the present, to the many places 
throughout the Chacoan area. Navajos have lived in the Southwest since 
time immemorial and as Navajo people, our clans, and oral ceremonial 
history is tied directly to Chaco Canyon and the landscape. Much of our 
life-ways begin in the greater Chaco Canyon region. Navajo people are 
concerned about their life-ways, ceremonial use areas, plant and 
mineral gathering areas, offering places, historic burials, as well as 
the archaeological sites throughout the region in which are all still 
in use today. Some of our Navajo Traditional Origins include the 
following:

     Navajo clans such as the Kinyaa'aanii (Towering House) 
            originated from the Chacoan Great House, Kinyaa'a, near the 
            present Navajo town of Crownpoint. Sub-clans include Tazhii 
            Dine'e (Turkey people), Dootl'izhi Dine'e (Turquoise 
            people), and Dzil T'anii Dine'e (Mountainside people). 
            These subclans were important in the overall functioning of 
            the ``Chacoan system''. This is just one example.

     Many Navajo ceremonials reference or begin in the Chacoan 
            region. For instance, the Navajo ceremonials, the Yoo'ee 
            (Beadway) begins here. The ceremony is for healing both the 
            individual and the community of personal and social ills. 
            In addition, the eagle catching traditions of the Navajo 
            people are deeply embedded in the Chacoan landscape. Both 
            ceremonial traditions include the built environment 
            (archaeological sites), and natural features in the greater 
            Chacoan landscape.

     Many songs, prayers and oral narratives begin at, or 
            incorporate Chacoan places. For instance, Tse diyilii 
            (Fajada Butte), is a prominent place in the Ajilee (Excess 
            Way), Tl'eeji (Nightway), Na'at'ooji (Shooting Way) 
            ceremonials.

Federal Jurisdictional Maze Around Chaco Culture National Historical 
        Park
    The Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation is a complicated mixture of 
Federal, Navajo Nation, State, Individual Indian Allotments (IIA), and 
private lands. Navajo people who live here are forced to negotiate the 
complex web of jurisdictions in their daily lives, ceremonial practice, 
and development activity related to oil and gas leasing. As stated 
above, there are approximately 53 Individual Indian Allotments (IIA) in 
the proposed 10-mile buffer zone. Many of them have oil & gas leases 
that generate more than $6 million annually for the Navajo allottees. 
Now, it is important to note that only Navajo people live in this area. 
No other tribe have lands here. We have stewards of the natural and 
cultural resources of the area for countless generations/time 
immemorial.
    As part due-diligence to protect this area, the Navajo Nation is a 
participant in the EIS for the Farmington-Mancos-Gallup Resource 
Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for the past few years. The local 
Navajo Chapters, particularly the Tri-Chapter Coalition (Naagizi, Ojo 
Encino, and Counselor Chapters) is active in voicing their concerns 
about the effect of the oil & gas development in their communities. The 
Navajo Nation is also participating in the development of a 
Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Section 106 process of the NHPA for 
the RMPA process. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the EIS will not be 
signed until the PA is completed and signed. There are numerous 
interested and concurring parties for the EIS, including 24 Indian 
Tribes from across the Southwest.

    Also, as a response to the activities of Congress for the last few 
years regarding Chaco Canyon, the Navajo Nation has been allocated 
funding to undertake an ethnographic project. The Navajo Ethnographic 
Study for the Chaco Region:

     In 2020, the BIA/DOI provided $1 million for tribes to 
            conduct ethnographic studies. The Navajo Nation received 
            $434,000 to conduct an ethnographic study to identify 
            cultural resources of importance to the Navajo People in 
            the Chaco area. The remaining funds went to other Tribes/
            Pueblos.

          o  An additional $600,000 was added to this BIA 
        project. The additional funds went to other pueblo tribes 
        (total allocation to Puebloan tribes is $1,166,000)

          o  The Navajo Nation requests additional funding 
        to complete the study, which include popular publications for 
        the public, and development of curriculum materials for local 
        schools to teach Navajo youth about their heritage.

     The project area spans much of the Eastern Navajo Agency 
            with particular emphasis on the planning area for the RMPA.

     The Navajo Nation contracted a Navajo-woman owned firm in 
            Farmington, New Mexico to conduct the study-Dinetahdoo 
            Cultural Resources Management, Inc. (DCRM). The contract is 
            managed by the NNHHPD. DCRM has begun interviewing, and we 
            expect a final report to be delivered before the end of the 
            current federal fiscal year in September 2022.

          o  local people living in the area will be 
        interviewed, plus individuals whose families used to live in 
        the area, and knowledgeable ceremonial practitioners to provide 
        a more complete picture of the long and rich history of Navajos 
        in the Chaco area.

    The report will be delivered to the BIA's national headquarters and 
will also be shared with the BLM Farmington Field Office, and the BIA 
Navajo Regional Office. Hopefully these agencies will use the 
information for land management and resources management activities and 
decisions.
No Federal Tribal Consultation with Navajo Nation
    Recently, Secretary Haaland issued a proposed mineral withdrawal on 
federal lands from any development. The Bureau of Land Management 
published the Federal Register on January 6, 2022. The proposal will 
withdraw 351,479.97 acres of federal lands from development for a 20-
year term. We have some very strong concerns:

     Secretary Haaland did not consult with the Navajo Nation 
            before making the decision on this federal action. In the 
            announcement for the administrative decision, Haaland is 
            quoted stating that the decision was based on the cultural 
            resources investigation studies that tribes were awarded to 
            conduct within Chaco Canyon. The Navajo Nation has yet to 
            complete the ethnographic study to date. The Navajo Nation 
            sent a letter to her and President Joe Biden in December 
            2021 detailing our concerns regarding development 
            activities in the Eastern Navajo Agency. As of today we 
            have not gotten a response from President Biden or 
            Secretary Haaland. Let me remind you, the greater Chacoan 
            landscape is part of Navajo Nation lands, and Individual 
            Indian Allotments. It's our front yard, our home. Secretary 
            Haaland has completely ignored and disregarded the 
            Executive Directives given by the Biden Administration 
            requiring Tribal Consultations on Federal actions and 
            decisions.

     Withdrawal may affect development on Navajo trust lands 
            and Individual Indian Allotments, in particular, improving 
            infrastructure to access minerals on these lands.

     The Department of Interior did not provide adequate notice 
            or offer consultation with the Navajo Nation prior to make 
            this administrative decision.

    Most importantly we ask the Department of Interior, the BLM, the 
BIA, and the Biden-Harris administration RESPECT Navajo cultural 
connections to the Chacoan landscape. Navajo people have lived in the 
Chacoan region for innumerable generations, and must be consulted and 
in some regards, give consent regarding development of mineral 
resources, and the impact to their quality of life. Engage in 
meaningful government-to-government consultation with the Navajo Nation 
and also the Navajo people. Perhaps this committee could also ask 
environmental organizations like National Parks Conservation 
Association, what formal consultation and guidance they have received 
from the Navajo Nation to allow them to use our landscape and people 
for their financial and political gain.
    In closing, myself and the 24th Navajo Nation Council respectfully 
and rightfully request with collaborative efforts, and extend an 
invitation to the House Natural Resources Committee to participate in a 
field hearing in the Navajo Eastern Agency. This hearing would assist 
in the ongoing collaborations of the Navajo Nation and your leadership 
in regards to hearing to Navajo Allottees positions and voices on these 
matters. In addition, the proposed cultural resource investigation 
(``study'') that was commissioned by Congress and authorized 
congressional appropriation to the Navajo Nation and to the All-Indian 
Pueblo Council to be performed by cultural experts within the Chaco 
Canyon and Chaco Culture National Historic Park, is still ongoing. The 
cultural resources investigation being conducted by our own Navajo 
Nation Heritage & Historic Preservation Department is allowing the 
Navajo Nation to identify the culturally and historically significant 
areas to the Navajo Nation and we urge Congressional leaders to wait 
until study results are completed before requesting any administrative 
withdrawals by the Secretary of Interior.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Mark A. Freeland, Navajo 
                        Nation Council Delegate
The Honorable Mark A. Freeland did not submit responses to the 
Committee by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed 
record.
              Questions Submitted by Representative Moore
    Question 1. In your written testimony, you noted that leadership 
from the Navajo Nation were concerned that environmental groups target 
Chacon Canyon for political and financial gain. Can you elaborate on 
these concerns?

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Freeland, Delegate Freeland, 
and I appreciate your comments. Let me now recognize Mr. Peter 
Forbes, Co-Founder of First Light.
    Mr. Forbes, you are recognized, sir.

STATEMENT OF PETER FORBES, CO-FOUNDER, FIRST LIGHT, WAITSFIELD, 
                            VERMONT

    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member 
Westerman, for your leadership in raising these issues. My name 
is Peter Forbes.
    I want you to know me as a farmer who works and earns a 
livelihood from the land in Abenaki territory and as a White 
man committed to changing conservation culture.
    I believe in the promise of our public lands to tell a 
story about this nation that brings us together, gives us 
meaning, prepares us for the future. To care for the land isn't 
Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. To care for 
the land isn't even reserved for environmentalists. To care is 
simply human.
    These beliefs led me to a career in conservation where I 
became an insider to national organizations. But my bedrock 
belief in people often made me an outsider to those same 
institutions where I mostly saw my own privileged, White world 
celebrating the land while denying, through intention and blind 
neglect, those same benefits to others and their very history 
and experience of it.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Forbes. I come to you to share my own experience and to 
dialogue. My culture has always thought of itself as White 
angels. This isn't my concept. John Gast painted it in 1872 and 
named it American Progress. My culture has never reconciled 
what Manifest Destiny created: the two American atrocities of 
human enslavement and Indigenous genocide. Every acre taken by 
Manifest Destiny was stolen from someone else, often violently.
    We have an opportunity now to create healing and 
reconciliation through an honest telling of history and its 
impacts.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Forbes. This is a map of Indigenous land loss on this 
continent. Despite White settlers' best efforts over hundreds 
of years, Indigenous people and their cultures were never 
removed from this continent, though dispossessed of land and 
life-ways and still oppressed today.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Forbes. And here is a map of conservation land gained 
during the same time period. Rarely does conservation talk 
about its connection to the history of Black and Indigenous 
land dispossession. Too much we persist in seeing ourselves as 
White angels saving the land, having the right answers, 
paternalistic, and reducing the agency of BIPOC communities, 
even as we preside over existential challenges such as species 
extinction, climate instability, social unrest, and a burning 
continent. Our poets write their last love letters to last 
places while environmental culture remains insulated from the 
wisdom that has always been right here within other people.
    National Parks Conservation Association is in that process 
of changing themselves by elevating BIPOC leaders and 
knowledge. They publicly challenge themselves to have at least 
50 percent of their staff be people of color within 5 years. 
All of these environmental groups need to re-examine their own 
history and speak to their own past betrayals. Organizations 
like NPCA addressing race and history isn't mission drift--it 
is mission maturity. This is a genuine invitation to enter a 
dialogue on more equitable terms about what other cultures need 
from our public lands.
    The role of White leadership is to create our own cultural 
shifts and take direction from Black and Indigenous leaders. 
For example, in Maine, with our country's Whitest population, 
65 conservation groups there have organized themselves into a 
collective called First Light to take direction from Wabanaki 
leaders on what lands must be returned and how all lands must 
be better cared for. Conservation groups there have returned 
thousands of acres and granted access to 78,000 acres, with 
more to come.
    This repairing and returning must become our long work if 
we are to mature beyond being White angels tossing bread crumbs 
to seagulls. This is about finally learning from those who we 
have ignored and dismissed the longest. Biodiversity, fire 
management, climate adaptation, and basic land use are all done 
better with traditional ecological knowledge.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Forbes. The Nature Conservancy, who manages over 100 
million acres worldwide, is partnering with the Klamath Tribe 
in Oregon to bring their knowledge into fire management, the 
benefits of which are vividly seen here in this photograph of 
the different results in land health when done with and without 
cultural burning by the Tribe.
    Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion between people 
has always been essential to caring for the land, long before 
this moment, but ever more important now. This is the time for 
my culture to work harder, building a practice of listening and 
moving at the speed of trust. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Peter Forbes, Navajo Nation Council Delegate
    I'm grateful to the committee and its staff for this opportunity to 
address very important issues. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 
Member Westerman for your leadership.
    I want you to know me as someone who works and earns a livelihood 
from the land, who lives in a rural part of this country, is a weekly 
ambulance driver on an all-volunteer squad, someone who has never 
before given such testimony.
    As a farmer, I can't join this conversation without honoring the 
contributions to our country made by Black and Brown farmers, that 
topic deserves its own hearing.
    I believe in the relationship between land and people; I also 
believe in the promise of our public lands to tell a story about this 
nation that brings us together, gives us meaning, prepares us for the 
future. My physical connection to the fields, forests and animals of 
our farm creates caring. And to care isn't Republican or Democrat, 
conservative or liberal. To care is not reserved, even, for 
environmentalists. To care is simply human.
    These beliefs led me to a career in conservation where I became an 
insider to national and global organizations as an employee, leader, 
organizer. But my bedrock belief in people often made me an outsider to 
those same institutions where I mostly saw my own privileged, white 
world celebrating the land while denying--through intention and blind 
neglect-those same benefits to others as well as their very history and 
experience with it.
    I come to you to share my own experience and to dialogue.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    .epsMy culture has always thought of itself as white angels. This 
isn't my concept. It's been demonstrated over and over since John Gast 
painted it in 1872. His American Progress became the symbol of the 
doctrine of discovery and manifest destiny. My culture has never 
reconciled what manifest destiny created: the two American atrocities 
of human enslavement and genocide. Every acre taken by manifest destiny 
was stolen from someone else, often violently. We have an opportunity 
to create healing and reconciliation through an honest telling of 
history and its impacts.

                      Indigenous Land Loss--Before
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                    .epsIndigenous Land Loss--After
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThis is a map of Indigenous land loss on this continent. 
Despite white settlers' best efforts over hundreds of years, Indigenous 
people and their cultures were never removed from this continent. 
Though powerfully dispossessed of land and lifeways and still oppressed 
today, the people and their ecological wisdom are here. 
Environmentalists must care about the people equal to the wisdom; the 
two can't be separated.
    Here's a map of land conservation gain during the same time period.

                     Conservation Land Gain--Before
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                   .epsConservation Land Gain--After
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsWhile conservationists inspire themselves at staff retreats 
with stories of land conservation's growth, rarely does conservation 
talk about the other history of Black and Indigenous land dispossession 
that was unfolding at the exact same time. Doing so goes against our 
perception of ourselves as good, but environmentalists can't actually 
become ``good'' without engaging it.
    Too much, we persist in seeing ourselves as white angels, saving 
the day and the land, having all the right answers, paternalistic and 
reducing the agency of BIPOC communities, even as we preside over 
existential challenges such as species extinction, climate instability, 
social unrest, and a burning continent. Our poets write their last love 
letters to last places while environmental culture remains insulated 
from other knowledge and wisdom that has always existed right here 
within other people who have different answers.
    We're great at raising money, but less good at changing practices 
that open us to other worldviews. For example, Green 2.0 Transparency 
Report Card found that while 99% of NGOs have resources set aside to 
finance their JEDI efforts and 84% have written an explicit policy, the 
majority of surveyed NGOs don't have concrete ways to elevate Black and 
Indigenous voice in their organizations.
    It's an obvious truth that not enough has been done, but genuine 
progress is being made.
    Some organizations are taking responsibility for their own change, 
going beyond words into action. These groups aren't outsourcing their 
own shifts by asking to Black, Brown and Indigenous people to educate 
them, but beginning to create a different future by understanding and 
speaking of the past betrayals. Addressing race and history may be for 
some an attempt to prove wokeness, but for others it's a genuine 
invitation to Americans to enter a dialogue on more equitable terms 
about what the planet needs and what our relationships with one another 
need.
    Organizations are elevating BIPOC leadership and centering their 
knowledge. National Parks Conservation Association is in that process: 
they've publicly challenged themselves to have 50% of their staff be 
people of color within 5 years. They've elevated staff of color into 
senior program roles and their executive team. This changes the 
conversations and actions that are possible. If you want to see where 
this can go, look at Grand Canyon Trust whose years of consistent 
Indigenous leadership on their board has led to innovative, successful 
local and national programs that are strengthening Indigenous 
communities, improving the health of the canyon itself, and changing 
what conservation means.
    The role of white leadership is to create our own culture shifts, 
never to represent BIPOC voice. For example, in Maine, with our 
country's whitest population, 65 conservation groups there have 
organized themselves into a collective called First Light to take 
direction from a Wabanaki Commission and to follow Wabanaki direction 
on what lands must be returned, or opened to their uses, and how all 
lands might better be cared for. These lands trust have granted rights 
to 78,000 acres with much more to come. The shared goals are equity for 
Wabanaki people, yes, and also better land management for everyone's 
benefit. There's a similar collaboration among 22 conservation groups 
in Oregon to develop sufficient relationship and trust to take 
direction from Tribal leaders around returning rights, access and land.
    This isn't conservation being white angels tossing breadcrumbs to 
seagulls; this is about taking direction from Black, Brown and 
Indigenous leadership to better care for the land and changing 
conservation to be about everyone's wellbeing through learning from 
those who we have ignored and dismissed the longest.
    There's abundant evidence confirmed by my culture that 
biodiversity, fire management, climate adaptation and basic land-use 
all can be done better with traditional ecological wisdom. These 
practices have had significantly longer success than ours. That 
longevity in results may be the difference between knowledge and 
wisdom.
    The Nature Conservancy, who manages over 100 million acres 
worldwide, has announced its own commitment to sharing power and 
knowledge with Indigenous people, the benefits of which are seen 
vividly here in this photograph of the different results in land health 
around fire when done with and without the ancient knowledge of the 
Klamath Tribe in Oregon. For almost 100 years, my culture thought it 
was absolutely right about fire suppression and wouldn't hear anything 
or anybody else.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    There are many Americans who love this landscape, care well for 
it, but would never call themselves environmentalists. Conservation 
needs to join them. Doing so requires fundamental change through 
relearning, recentering, returning--if we are to join others in 
protecting our planet. For organizations doing the relearning, 
recentering and returning, this is not mission drift but mission 
maturity. This is the work of bringing our country's best minds to 
solve problems together.
    These changes are real, and while heartening, this is certainly not 
a time to be congratulated. It's a time to work harder to be 
trustworthy to the many people who have been left out and denied. It's 
time for white-led conservation groups to build a practice of 
listening, to not take any bows but, instead, to bow our heads and to 
keep working.
    Problems persist. Many white-led environmental institutions still 
put themselves first: being around for 100 years is more important than 
creating the change that's needed in the next five years. This has led 
to a hoarding of resources that can be seen in 10-figure endowments. 
Who really benefits from these endowments and resources? What will we 
do with that privilege? Will our actions be bold or soon enough?
    Justice, equity, diversity, inclusion between people has always 
been essential to caring for the land, long before this moment, but 
ever more important right now. The path forward requires my culture 
relearning history, recentering BIPOC leadership, returning resources; 
the hope is better care for this land we share and to replace that 
doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago with a new doctrine of 
relationship.
    Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Forbes, and I thank 
all of you for your valuable testimony.
    I remind the Members that Committee Rule 3(d) also imposes 
a 5-minute limit on their questions.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for any questions they 
wish to ask. Let me begin by turning to the Ranking Member for 
his questions or comments.
    Mr. Westerman, sir.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you 
to the witnesses.
    I want to start with Delegate Freeland. Thank you so much 
for sharing your story with the Committee today. It is actually 
very disheartening to hear how the views of the Navajo Nation 
were, quite frankly, just disregarded. As I said earlier, talk 
is cheap, and the Biden administration, they have a Memorandum 
on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation 
Relationships. And in part it reads, ``My Administration is 
committed to honoring Tribal sovereignty and including Tribal 
voices in policy deliberation that affects Tribal 
communities.''
    Delegate Freeland, in your opinion, did the Biden 
administration follow through on this commitment?
    Mr. Freeland. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Westerman, thank 
you for that question.
    To date, we have not received a response, as I said in my 
testimony. So, today would be no.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you detail the efforts that the Navajo 
Nation made to be included in the policy deliberation process?
    It wasn't like you all weren't trying to be included in the 
process, was it?
    Mr. Freeland. Thank you for that question. Chairman 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, we have made several 
attempts to work through our Congressional Delegation, and we 
have done this through the prior administration, as well as 
this Administration, to have these voices heard. To date, we 
have not had a response to a letter we did send out, like I 
mentioned, in December to the White House and to the Department 
of the Interior.
    Mr. Westerman. But why do you think the Biden 
administration refused to engage you in this decision-making 
process?
    I mean, we have read their memorandum. We see the focus of 
this hearing today. Yet, you have experienced something 
different. Do you have any idea why they would act different 
than they speak?
    Mr. Freeland. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, 
it all stems from the withdrawal of the acreage of the BLM 
lands, and that is going to make a severe impact on our Navajo 
Nation allottees.
    And I don't know if the Administration or the Department of 
the Interior completely understood or understands the potential 
impact this is going to cause to our Navajo people. And mind 
you that we do have about 20,000 to 25,000 of our Navajo people 
that will be impacted by this Federal withdrawal of BLM lands.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes. Hopefully, it is a misunderstanding. 
And I know you proposed having a field hearing. I don't think 
anything tells the story any better than actually going to the 
field and seeing and hearing from the people who are actually 
being affected. Maybe the Administration can reverse course and 
actually go out and talk to the people who this is affecting. 
That would be great, I think, if we could do a field hearing.
    It seems to me that the Biden administration has made just 
a unilateral decision without your input. However, Navajo 
families are the ones that are suffering from the consequences 
of this decision. Can you describe in more detail the adverse 
impacts of a ban on oil and gas development?
    What will be the day-to-day, on-the-ground impacts to 
Navajo families?
    Mr. Freeland. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair and 
Ranking Member Westerman.
    Right now, like I mentioned before, we have 53 individual 
Indian allotments out there within that 10-mile buffer. To 
date, that is going to impact about 20,000 to 25,000 of our 
Navajo Nation allottees out there. Now, they have that 
individual right to this process of energy and mineral 
extraction because that is their land through inheritance.
    Now, what is going to happen, of course, is that this 
impact will severely--they rely on these royalties for everyday 
needs, for food, for firewood, for propane, just for living. 
And that is going to make about a $6 million impact to them 
right now.
    In Navajo, we believe in customs, but there are always two 
sides to every story. And one side has been heard now, but our 
side has yet to be heard. And the Secretary did make a trip out 
there in November, and we were not consulted nor were we even 
invited. And we felt that was an insult to the Nation and to 
the Nation's leadership. So, that was hard to take.
    And as a representative of that area, it falls to my 
chapter boundaries. So, it is going to make a severe impact, 
locally. These are people that rely heavily on this income, and 
these royalties that they receive, and they do have good 
relationships with the energy company. And I have seen this for 
myself. The oil companies do work with them directly. And it is 
going to make a severe impact on them.
    So, we ask that the Committee please come out to Eastern 
Navajo Agency and hear from the people directly. Thank you, Mr. 
Ranking Member.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Delegate. I couldn't help but 
think about--when we look around the world today, and we see 
what Putin is doing in Ukraine, with amassing troops basically 
on three sides of the country, and I am disheartened to know 
that over $60 million a day of U.S. money is going to Russia to 
buy energy. And it seems like if we produce that energy 
domestically, maybe part of it off of the Navajo Nation, that 
that would benefit families there on your reservation more than 
it is benefiting a ruthless person who is trying to do harm in 
the world. It just doesn't make sense to me why your voices 
weren't heard.
    And it is not just a temporary thing. My understanding is 
the Biden administration is pursuing a 20-year ban on oil and 
gas development around Chaco Canyon. I mean, that is part of 
your resources. What will you do? How will you generate income 
and jobs and allow communities to be built and families to grow 
without extracting these resources?
    Mr. Freeland. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Westerman, thank 
you for that question.
    Let me start by saying that the Navajo people have always 
been very patriotic to this country, and we have always called 
during the time of need, whether it is in the armed forces or 
across this country. We are very patriotic, and we still are to 
this day. Some of our young men and women were actually headed 
toward Eastern Europe and had the call of duty. We are very 
proud of them, and we are very acknowledgeable to our warriors 
out there serving this country in the military. So, we are 
thankful for them.
    As far as the energy extraction situation is concerned, 
right now this 20-year moratorium for a 10-mile buffer is going 
to severely impact--I mentioned the individual allotments. 
Energy companies are not going to want to go out there and just 
do one or two. They are going to want to do multiple 
allotments, or multiple areas--it is more cost effective that 
way. And they don't want to go out there and just do one 
allotment. They want to do three or four at one time. It is 
going to make a severe impact, financially, on our Navajo 
people.
    And all we are saying is, hear our people out. Give them 
some consideration. Give them some time to be heard. And I, as 
a representative, I feel really----
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and I am sure the other 
Members will, Mr. Freeland, be able to finish the thoughts. The 
time has gone over by a minute. We will extend that courtesy to 
other witnesses, as well, once.
    Let me now turn to the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. 
Huffman, if you have any questions, sir, for the witness.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good 
to see that our colleagues across the aisle have suddenly found 
interest in tribal consultation--certainly something that was 
missing whenever we considered any number of fossil fuel and 
mining projects in recent years: Keystone Pipeline, Dakota 
Access Pipeline. I mean, tribal concerns were nowhere on the 
map for our colleagues. But let us hope that this newfound 
concern is sincere and not just a pretext to advance the usual 
agenda of the fossil fuel and mining industries. I certainly 
hope that it is sincere.
    But Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. Let 
me also say how proud I am of the way that you and Mr. 
McEachin, in particular, have worked so steadfastly to elevate 
the consideration of under-served and disadvantaged groups and 
communities of color in all of the work we do. This hearing is 
important, and it has far-reaching implications.
    I have the pleasure of representing California's 2nd 
District. And, of course, it has many affluent, predominantly 
White communities, but it is rapidly diversifying, and it is 
rich with Indigenous culture. In fact, my district is home to 
more federally recognized Tribal Nations than any other 
congressional district in the Lower 48. It is also home, as 
many of you know, to record-setting wildfires that are 
increasing in frequency and severity because of the climate 
crisis.
    And last August, I had the honor of hosting Secretary Deb 
Haaland on a tour of California's north coast. She did 
something that no Secretary of the Interior has ever done for 
the tribes in my district. She sat down with them. She listened 
to their concerns and ideas, and she also toured some areas 
where Federal investments in tribal communities are creating 
and advancing both conservation and resiliency goals.
    Not surprisingly, many of the tribal leaders that we spoke 
with highlighted the importance of forming partnerships with 
tribes and local stakeholders on environmental issues. I hear 
this a lot in my district and beyond. And we are starting to 
have some actual success stories on this front.
    Mr. Forbes, you mentioned toward the end of your testimony 
how the Nature Conservancy has partnered with the Klamath Tribe 
in Oregon and helped improve forest health and fire resiliency. 
I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on how incorporating 
Indigenous leadership and traditional ecological knowledge in 
mainstream environmental institutions actually leads to better 
outcomes for everyone, and I am particularly interested in 
hearing more about that wildfire example.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congressman Huffman.
    I mean, yes, despite our best intentions, there have been 
harmful practices like fire suppression, right? The knowledge 
that fire is essential to healthy land has always been there. 
We have simply ignored it. Decades of Western science fire 
suppression led to the build up of fuel. I think you know the 
story.
    Alternatively, there have been practices, from traditional 
ecological knowledge around small-scale cultural burns done 
annually, reducing fuel loads, releasing seeds. But there are 
lots and lots of other examples of it. The U.N. came out with a 
report last year that said there is more biodiversity on 
Indigenous-managed land across the globe than on lands managed 
by Western science. Indigenous-stewarded lands tend to produce 
more pollinators, more birds, more mammals.
    Those of us in agriculture, myself a farmer, there is so 
much that we can learn from Pueblo dryland farmers about how to 
produce healthy crops without diverting watersheds. There are 
as many examples, I think, of traditional ecological knowledge 
as there are diverse Tribal Nations themselves.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. So, in your view, why is it 
so important that White environmentalists and policymakers show 
up on these issues?
    And what role do you think mainstream environmental NGOs 
should be playing in elevating and re-centering Indigenous 
perspectives?
    Mr. Forbes. Well, I guess I want to say the future doesn't 
necessarily mean White-led, right?
    I mean, White organization, White leaders who really care 
most about protecting the land need to care about that, not 
necessarily their role in it. I think White-led conservation 
groups need to re-examine their own origin stories to better 
understand what the myths are of those, what parts require 
repair with other people. I think that is really a very, very 
significant issue. Once you know the story of Indigenous land 
loss, it is not hard to understand, for example, how the 
concepts of wilderness, ``untrammeled by man,'' can come close 
to being erasure of a people's experience.
    When there have been betrayals, we need to speak openly of 
them. We need to understand the treaties and really read them, 
and understand what is still owed and never been fulfilled in 
those agreements. We need to contemplate what we can do through 
private ownership of land to restore what public treaties 
haven't done. That is what is happening in Maine, and we hope 
in Oregon, as well.
    The Chairman. We are almost done.
    Mr. Forbes. I think we need to vigorously support efforts 
to move toward the co-management of land, those efforts 
grounded in our Department of the Interior and in Indigenous 
Nations.
    Finally, I think we, in the conservation environmental 
movement----
    The Chairman. You reached that minute threshold extension 
for your----
    Mr. Forbes [continuing]. To build Indigenous capacity to 
step into those roles.
    The Chairman. Sir----
    Mr. Forbes. And I am talking here about transferring some 
of our endowments directly to tribes to enable them to step 
into those roles.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and we have extended the 1-minute 
courtesy, Mr. Forbes, that we extended to the other gentleman. 
So, thank you. That will be the end of those.
    Let me now recognize Mr. McClintock for 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't do a mic 
check. Can you hear me?
    The Chairman. I can hear you well.
    Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you very much. Well, I guess I 
would begin by raising the question, while we are making any 
grants to any groups, that these funds are often used as 
gigantic slush funds. They have little oversight, little 
followup, and little results, except enriching the groups that 
receive them.
    If the Federal Government needs a particular good or 
service, it ought to send out a request for proposals, specify 
what it needs, and then award a contract to the lowest 
responsible bidder to provide that good or service, and then 
hold them contractually accountable for delivering that good or 
service, period.
    This entire discussion reminds me of the scene in 
Ghostbusters when a typical grant recipient says he might have 
to go work for the private sector. ``The private sector,'' he 
responds in horror, ``Oh no, no, no. I have worked with the 
private sector. They expect results.''
    The entire discussion today underscores the principal 
purpose of these grants: to enrich the recipients. The Majority 
doesn't argue this point. They just think it is enriching the 
wrong recipients, based on their race. I think the American 
people have had enough of this nonsense.
    Let's stop throwing money at whatever group happens to be 
in political favor and start being as frugal with it as the 
families that actually earn that money are with what they have 
left after they have paid their taxes.
    Since the Biden administration took office and shut down 
energy exploration on Federal lands, canceled the Keystone 
Pipeline, and began a war on affordable energy, Americans' 
energy costs have skyrocketed. Anybody who has visited a gas 
station this year knows that. Anybody who has paid a utility 
bill knows that.
    The Democrats in Congress that they elected couldn't care 
less. And you have just proven that, I think, remarkably in 
this hearing. What they care about is that the taxes paid by 
American workers go to people based on their race, ethnicity, 
gender, political views, and sexual preferences. That is what 
the Democrats care about. This is absolutely insane, and it is 
going to continue as long as the people responsible for it 
remain in office. It is that simple.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized, sir.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Let me now turn to, if he is available, Mr. 
Gallego.
    You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Chairman, I appreciate it, and I 
apologize if I took Mr. Lowenthal's spot. I am sure I will make 
it up to him later.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for sharing your time and 
perspectives with the Committee today.
    As a Representative for the hottest district in the hottest 
city in the country, where the population is 62 percent 
Hispanic and 23 percent below the poverty line, the stakes of 
this conversation are sky-high for the people I represent. The 
effects of climate change and pollution are already being felt 
disproportionately by communities like mine. That means, in 
order to effectively fight climate change and prevent the worst 
of its effects, we have to put these frontline communities 
front and center.
    That is why what we are doing here is very important. The 
perspectives and experiences of the groups that have the most 
to lose from climate change and environmental justice have been 
left out of policymaking for too long. I am glad to work with 
you and the Biden administration to change that. And I just 
have a couple of questions.
    Ms. Chatterjee, your testimony says that the mainstream 
environmental movement's history of exclusion has resulted in 
failed attempts at durable climate policy because policymakers 
have ignored the very people that have an organized community 
behind them. Why do you think it is critical for environmental 
NGOs to include affected communities in the decision-making 
process?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for your question.
    Back in 2009, the last time we had a large effort to pass 
climate legislation, it failed. One of the critical lessons 
that has been learned from many historians who have studied 
that effort is that the conversation on equity was not 
sufficient so that communities were bought into that effort.
    So, from my perspective, it is imperative that we make sure 
that communities are included in the conversation so that that 
policy cannot only pass, but that it can be durable because it 
has the backing of communities like the ones you represent.
    Mr. Gallego. OK. And then in your testimony, you also 
mention that complex jargon and terminology is often used to 
hide real environmental dangers.
    I see this all the time in my community, as well. Folks 
just may not understand the effects of certain chemicals or 
compounds, but they know dirty air leads to asthma in our kids, 
even particulate--I think I remember seeing different permits 
for different types of particulates, and the notification will 
go out. And, of course, usually the hearings are during the 
day, where many working-class people, especially people of 
color, can't take time off of work.
    Can you also give some examples of how we can use plain 
language to combat this phenomenon?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Sure, thank you. I think that the way that 
we organize in our communities is with language that people 
understand, language that you were just using.
    We know that our kids have asthma. We know that kids are 
missing school when they have asthma attacks. We know who is 
causing this. We know who the culprits are. We know that it 
comes from pollution. We know that that pollution has been 
perpetuated by billionaires in the oil and gas industry, 
insisting that their polluting profits be in our communities. 
So, billionaires are making sure that our kids have asthma.
    I think that making sure that people understand these very, 
very simple real-life effects, like not only of the immediate 
health effects, but also the effects of climate change. Why do 
we have more large wildfires? We have more large wildfires 
because of the same polluting billionaires who have kept this 
country addicted to a fuel that is literally poisoning our 
children.
    And I think using that plain language of ``we are poisoning 
our children,'' ``this is pollution,'' just helps people 
understand what is going on a lot better than using number and 
letter sequences.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you. A question for Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes, you mentioned the Grand Canyon Trust as a 
strong example of Indigenous leadership. Can you please expand 
how you believe that Indigenous leadership has influenced and 
improved the group's work, and why incorporating the advice of 
affected communities is so important?
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congressman. By having Indigenous 
board members, it changes the conversations that happen in 
those meetings. It brings the opportunity for new 
conversations, new policies, new ways of thinking into the most 
senior aspects of the organization, and that changes programs. 
It changes everything. And it is going to ultimately lead to 
decisions that are better for the Grand Canyon, better for that 
organization. I think also better for the Navajo people.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Gallego, the gentleman, yields. Let me 
now recognize and invite for his 5 minutes Mr. Graves.
    Sir.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, let me turn to and recognize Mr. 
Moore for his 5 minutes to question or comment with the 
witnesses.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Delegate Freeland, I appreciate your comments and do share 
your frustration with the lack of consultation from this 
Administration on management decisions. In Utah, we have 
experienced this many times with Federal unilateral land grabs 
and designations. It is frustrating to be in. It is frustrating 
to be a part of this whole entire conversation.
    I know my time in Congress has been short, but some of the 
things that I have valued the most--like I said, I am from 
Utah. The Ute Tribe is incredibly important to the entire 
heritage of our state. As I have spent a year in Congress, a 
little time leading up to my election in 2020, some of the 
things I look back on is my time meeting with the Ute 
Committee, their governing body of individuals. I ran against a 
Chairman of the Shoshone Nation in my general election, and you 
can go back and look at--I am sure you are not all following 
Utah media, but the amount of collaboration and decency and 
civility that exists in Utah, it is frustrating to see a 
narrative get shifted into saying that my party doesn't care 
about this.
    These are very complex issues and we dig into it deeply. 
And the time and the amount of effort that I have spent working 
with the Ute Tribe are some of the biggest highlights that I 
have had this year.
    One of the most exciting infrastructure projects in recent 
memory is currently actually unfolding in Utah. For the first 
time in decades, a new private rail line is being constructed 
to carry energy, agricultural, and manufacturing products 
across my district and into the larger rail network. We have 
spent countless hours on this, and it has been a huge success 
for this area. This development, funded entirely by private 
dollars, will create many high-paying jobs. It enjoys unanimous 
support from leaders in Utah, the Federal Delegation, the 
Legislature, the Governor's Office, county leaders, the Senate 
Minority Leader and members of her leadership team, and more.
    But most importantly and crucially, this project has the 
full and strong support--and they are equity players--in the 
Ute business, in the Ute Indian Tribe. They rely on this part 
of the energy industry. And it is frustrating to watch 
environmental groups that I feel are being--with a complete 
tunnel vision, with an outsized influence on some of the policy 
decisions that get made here, that don't take this reality into 
consideration.
    I am going to try to yield a little bit of time back here. 
But Delegate Freeland, just a quick question I would love your 
response to: Why is it so important to include local voices, 
like those of the Navajo Nation, into decision making, and why 
can't we rely on bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or those that 
have outsized influence over policy to make decisions for us?
    Mr. Freeland. Mr. Chair and Congressman, thank you for that 
question.
    Collectively, the Navajo Nation leadership is equally 
concerned that environmental organizations have pointed a 
target on Chaco Canyon, for instance, whether it is for 
political or financial gain--without listening or taking into 
account the people that are from that very region.
    Now, the Chaco area is located on Navajo lands. And as 
leaders, we have to come to an understanding that this is a 
part of the discussion that came from the National Parks 
Conservation Association. They have been one of the primary 
environmental advocacy groups for national parks and for years 
have launched campaigns calling for buffers around 12 national 
parks that are most threatened by oil and gas, and Chaco was 
one of them.
    And the last 6 years have been considerably--there have 
been multiple proposals and considerations. But that is a 
concern, without taking any consideration of the potential 
impacts to our people, as well. No consideration was given to 
our people at any level. Thank you.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Delegate.
    Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute of my time to 
Ranking Member Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Representative Moore.
    Mr. Forbes, you brought up a point that I think we have a 
lot of agreement on when you talk about how tribes manage 
forests. I had the great pleasure last summer to be out in 
south central New Mexico and visit the Mescalero Apache Tribe. 
I met Thora Padilla, who is a forester there. I studied 
forestry myself. I am telling you they were managing this 
Ponderosa pine forest textbook-style. It was almost perfect. We 
went up to the Lincoln National Forest where the Little Bear 
Fire burned 44,000 acres 12 years ago. It looked like a 
moonscape.
    I think that the tribes manage because they can. The Forest 
Service doesn't manage because they are prevented. Do you have 
an opinion on that?
    The Chairman. If you could make your response pretty quick, 
because the 5 minutes have already expired. Thank you.
    Mr. Forbes. I would simply say I agree with you, 
Congressman, and I think every opportunity we have to integrate 
the Indigenous voice into management and follow that lead is 
really important.
    And to Delegate Freeland, I agree with much that you have 
said, and all the environmental organizations I know and work 
with have a great deal of respect for the Navajo Nation. And--
--
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    And on that topic, if I may, Mr. Westerman and Mr. Freeland 
and Mr. Forbes, I will just comment on that topic. This 
Committee will have in the near future, in the very near 
future, the opportunity to talk about codifying consultation as 
a process for Indian Country. We will have an opportunity to do 
that and to talk about this general consensus that we seem to 
be arriving at.
    And then the other thing we will have, we will also have an 
opportunity to codify some of the protections for all 
communities, particularly impacted and marginalized 
communities, relative to the issue of environmental justice and 
participation in that decision making under NEPA. So, we will 
have an opportunity to deal with co-management initiatives 
legislatively going forward with regard to Indigenous people 
and tribes. We will have that opportunity to begin to look at 
it legislatively and codify it. Those are being expedited now 
and should be before us and for your input in the very, very 
near future.
    With that, let me now turn to the Chair of the 
Subcommittee, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Representative, you are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Grijalva, and 
thank you for leading the effort to have this conversation 
about the importance of consultation that, together with 
preservation and recognition of the many stories and ties to 
the land that people have, the Indigenous wisdom that must be 
brought to fore as we talk about all these issues, the voices 
that must be heard, but also the voices from around the 
country, from different people's ties, whether it is Latinos 
who have also been living on the land for a long time, who must 
also respect the Indigenous place, that is part and parcel of 
who we are and the work that I am so glad we are able to do in 
the Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples. So, I really appreciate 
all the witnesses' testimony adding to that narrative.
    And thank you so much, Delegate Freeland, for your tireless 
advocacy. I really appreciated the meeting that we had here in 
my office last week. As you know, we spoke about it last week, 
when we were planning the meeting that we had with the 
allottees, where you brought allottees in, and the Navajo 
Speaker's office, and you and other delegates together--I guess 
last spring is when we did that, so last spring. I really 
appreciated that.
    And as you know and as we talked about last week, about the 
importance of listening as an ongoing act, as an ongoing 
process, and listening with both an open mind and an open 
heart. So, I join you, the Navajo and the Pueblo leaders, in 
striving to find the important balance, the important harmony 
that we must always look for in protecting the priceless 
cultural resources of Chaco Canyon, of the mineral rights of 
the allottees, of so many of these other places.
    I really enjoyed when I was able to work in New Mexico a 
bit on that protection of Mt. Taylor, which is also one of 
those places that is sacred and protected for so many different 
tribes, the Navajo, the Pueblos, and the Zunis. And that 
collaboration that existed there in that discussion, I think, 
is really important.
    But we also know that protecting cultural properties 
requires significant investment of tribal resources, resources 
that you don't always have. It takes money to hire the staff. 
You have an amazing staff there, in your tribal--your THPO. 
That is why I led the inclusion of additional funding in the 
House-passed appropriations bill for cultural studies.
    I also introduced a bill just last week that would dedicate 
increased resources to the Historic Preservation Fund, which 
will help fund your THPO office and all other THPO offices and 
state offices.
    So, a common theme that I think we have heard today that 
Chair Grijalva recognized is the need for Latino, Native 
American, and the under-represented voices to access funding 
opportunities. I know what that is like because I have spent my 
lifetime representing tribes, representing northern New Mexico, 
and I know how hard it is to access that Federal funding, and 
that there are these additional challenges that rural 
communities face from the lack of broadband to be able to get 
that funding. We are going to be trying to work on a lot of 
that through the infrastructure bill.
    But I want to take it down to sort of what could we do 
better. Ms. Chatterjee, in your testimony, you discuss the need 
to lower the barriers for under-represented organizations to 
apply for grants. What are the changes you think could make it 
easier for organizations and communities to apply and manage 
those grants, while still maintaining--you know, people are 
worried about maintaining oversight. What would you recommend 
to us, both for foundations and for Federal Governments?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Fernandez. 
I think that one of the big things is making the application 
process less complex. We know that for small, grassroots 
organizations, spending hours and hours and hours is impossible 
to do and is really burdensome.
    I also think that giving multi-year support becomes really 
important so that groups have the flexibility to assess and 
determine how to achieve justice within their own communities, 
repair past harms, and prevent future harms. If you want to, 
for example, hire somebody to do the work, you really have to 
understand that you have resources for a few years.
    And then, of course, just seeking out conversations to 
understand what has happened in those grants, as opposed to 
having, like, very, very onerous reporting requirements. I 
think that changing these requirements will actually increase 
the standard and the work that is getting done.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, and I see my time is 
expired.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Let me return to Mr. Graves.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Graves. I hope you all are having a great day today. I 
want to thank the witnesses for coming and testifying.
    Ms. Chatterjee, I could certainly point out a number of 
things in your testimony I don't agree with. But one thing I 
perhaps want to highlight that I think I do agree with is that 
you made comments about the lengthy process and bureaucracy 
associated with grantmaking. And to some degree I think you 
covered kind of the black box process, the lack of 
transparency. And I do want to make note that I do think that 
there are improvements that we can make there, in terms of 
improving transparency and decisions in terms of ensuring that 
the right criteria is being used to award grants for the best 
outcomes.
    And in many cases, from what we have seen, I think that the 
grants are focused more so on, and Federal decision making is 
based more so on, protecting themselves from litigation versus 
doing what the actual grants or the regulatory decisions are 
supposed to be achieving. Is that a fair assessment and maybe 
an area where we can agree?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for the question. 
Absolutely. I think that the grant process is onerous. I think 
there are examples, even within the Federal Government, of it 
working well. I think there are examples within the Federal 
Government of using peer review processes. And then there are 
examples where--sometimes we have members who have told us that 
they had to write a 100-page proposal, for example, for a body 
of work that they were clearly very well suited to do. But 
writing 100 pages is practically a novel.
    That can't be the expectation. And if that is the 
expectation, what will happen is that legacy recipients are the 
only ones who will be able to receive the contracts and grants 
from the Federal Government, because they have full-time staff 
who are there to write those proposals. So, I think it is a 
point of agreement, and hopefully we could find others, as 
well.
    Mr. Graves. Great, thank you.
    Yes, I know the Chairman has told me that he used to just 
copy CliffsNotes and encyclopedias in school, rather than 
writing 100 pages worth of reports and documents, right, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Mr. Freeland, I want to flip over to you for just a minute. 
I am a believer that all people, regardless of race, color, or 
origin, should be treated fairly. And I think it is important.
    I am concerned that some of the layering of decision making 
and non-statutory criteria--meaning public policy that is 
brought into decisions that may not be in the law or, in some 
cases, I think are inconsistent with the law--can result in 
distorting or manipulating outcomes that may not be in 
taxpayers' interests. And I think that, in some cases, these 
criteria are preventing the best decisions, are preventing 
appropriate fairness or treatment of individuals that may be of 
diverse backgrounds.
    And I think, in many cases, the environmental review 
process has been expanded beyond its intent of actually 
focusing on the environment, environmental impacts, and 
protecting the environment. And I think it has been weaponized 
as a tool to, in some cases, justify policy outcomes. The 
series of decisions for whether to designate a buffer zone 
around Chaco Canyon National Park, I think, is a good example 
of just that, and how the Administration, in my opinion, 
fundamentally misunderstands, or maybe even disregards the 
impact of resource development, particularly on economically 
disadvantaged communities.
    Although allottee lands are not officially prevented from 
resource development, can you expand on how the buffer 
designation impacts the interests for developers and hinders 
economic operations, and how this is impacting tribal 
allottees?
    Mr. Freeland. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Congressman. Thank 
you for that question.
    First and foremost, this is an issue for our Navajo people. 
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is a Navajo 
people allottee right issue, first and foremost. Let's make 
that very clear.
    We are here to ask for tribal consultation on our side. 
Tribal consultation has been conducted to other tribes, yes. We 
do have strong cultural ties to the area. A lot of our people 
live in that area. And to create a 10-mile buffer zone would 
severely impact financially the allottees that live within that 
area, that have those mineral rights, that do have the 
individual Indian allotment. Financially, they do rely on that.
    Recently it was published in the Federal Register, the BLM 
land to be withdrawn. There is going to be a public hearing 
that is going to be held. It is not even going to be held on 
the Navajo Nation. It is going to be held in Farmington. These 
communities are going to be severely impacted by this 
withdrawal. And it is so important that we just ask for a 
consultation adequately to have our people be heard.
    Our people cannot travel to Washington, DC to visit the 
congressmen and the senators. They cannot. So, we are their 
only voice. And like I told one of our Congresswomen, we are 
here to share our stories. We are here to share their thoughts 
and their concerns with you all. So, thank you.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Freeland, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    Let me now turn to Ms. Stansbury for your 5 minutes. You 
are recognized, Representative.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and I want to 
take this opportunity to thank all of our witnesses this 
morning for participating in this important hearing. I think it 
is really crucial that we acknowledge the history of the United 
States and its policies, and how that has disproportionately 
impacted our communities of color and, in particular, our 
Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other communities that have been 
affected by the historical policies of this country, and 
economic development and, in particular, our Indigenous 
communities.
    And the ways in which that history has impacted and led to 
the loss of lands and waters has had disproportionate impacts, 
from resource extraction and pollution in our Indigenous, 
Hispanic, Black, and AAPI communities, and impacted the ability 
of these communities to not only have their voices heard, but 
to have a meaningful seat at the table in developing the 
policies that affect our communities and their ability to 
change the course of their own futures.
    In New Mexico, our Indigenous communities have managed 
lands and waters for generations since time immemorial. In 
fact, the land, water, and agricultural stewardship practices 
of our Tribes and Pueblos have been in existence for thousands 
of years, and our Tribes and Pueblos continue to be at the 
forefront of land and water stewardship. Pueblos in the middle 
of Rio Grande, such as Sandia, Isleta, and Santa Ana are 
working to restore the bosque and ensure water is available for 
generations to come. Pueblos such as Kewa, Cochiti, Jemez, and 
Santa Clara have been at the forefront of restoring our 
forests, managing for fires, and working to improve the 
hydrology and resilience of our lands and waters.
    Our Tribes and Pueblos are working to address the impacts 
of climate change, to maintain and revitalize our traditional 
agricultural practices, to restore and to repatriate sacred 
lands and traditional lands, and to continue those traditional 
stewardship practices that are central to the cultures and 
traditions and ways of life of our communities.
    And New Mexico is also home to other models of land and 
water stewardship that have sustained our communities for 
generations. Our land grant and acequia communities have 
sustainably managed land and water for generations. My hermana 
from the north, Representative Leger Fernandez, knows the 
importance of these land grants and acequias, which are steeped 
in our Hispano-Latino heritage in New Mexico, and which carry 
traditions that are key to the future resilience of our state 
and our communities.
    So, as the Federal Government is intersecting with and 
working with our communities to promote conservation and 
resource stewardship, we have to make sure that our communities 
are centered in that work, and that there is adequate funding 
and support for co-management--for working together and 
ensuring that our communities' histories, cultures, and 
languages are really centered in the work that we are trying to 
advance.
    So, that means providing funding, resources, supporting co-
management of lands and waters, meaningful consultation and, of 
course, recognizing the tribal sovereignty of our Pueblos and 
Tribes, and, most importantly, ensuring that the knowledge, the 
wisdom, the governance, and the institutions of our communities 
and communities of color are really at the center of our 
conservation and environmental protection work.
    I want to thank the Chair for convening today's hearing, 
and I would like to ask a question of Ms. Chatterjee.
    I think one of the reasons why we are having this hearing 
is to really understand how our communities can meaningfully be 
at the table in this work. So, I wonder if you could take a few 
moments to talk about what you see as the primary barriers to 
advancing true justice, equity, diversity, and belonging in our 
mainstream environmental and conservation work. And how do we 
bring all of these voices to the table in our work in a 
meaningful way?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Stansbury.
    I think I spoke about one of the barriers, which is jargon, 
but I think that one thing I just want to make sure to be clear 
here is that part of the issue here is that we don't have any 
time on the climate crisis, and we have spent so much time 
prioritizing voices of people who are not impacted, that the 
core of this is that we are out of time to waste. So, we have 
to fix that core problem, which is bringing in the voices of 
the people who are most affected.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time here. So, with that, I 
will yield back, and thank you so much for holding this 
important hearing today.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your comments. Let me recognize 
Representative Stauber.
    You are recognized, sir, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Freeland, I agree with you that Interior Secretary 
Haaland has been a disappointment, to say the least. The 
Interior Secretary pulled two Federal leases from a mining 
operation before it was even allowed to go through the review 
process, the process that we have in place. It was purely 
political. So, your disappointment in the Secretary is felt by 
many, including those union miners in northern Minnesota.
    Ms. Chatterjee, thank you for being here. The Climate 
Action Network, that is a non-profit, is that correct?
    Ms. Chatterjee. That is correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. And what is your salary?
    Ms. Chatterjee. I do not know my salary, off the top of my 
head, but it is fully disclosed in our 990 tax forms.
    Mr. Stauber. Would $164,000 be correct?
    Ms. Chatterjee. That sounds approximately correct.
    Mr. Stauber. And you are out of Washington, DC?
    Ms. Chatterjee. That is correct.
    Mr. Stauber. What is the median income in Washington, DC?
    Ms. Chatterjee. I also do not know the median income in 
Washington, DC off the top of my head.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. It is $92,000. So, Ms. Chatterjee, I 
noticed that the Climate Action Network has a Chinese branch 
called the China Youth Climate Action Network. Does the China 
Youth Climate Action Network support the justice of Uyghur 
minorities that are tortured and killed by the Chinese 
Communist Party?
    Ms. Chatterjee. The U.S. Climate Action Network is a node 
of an international network of climate activists called Climate 
Action Network International. So, we are the U.S. node. We have 
about 200 member organizations in the United States, and there 
are----
    Mr. Stauber. Are you doing anything about the Uyghurs being 
tortured and killed by the Chinese Communist Party via your 
Chinese Youth Climate Action Network?
    Are you engaged with them at all?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question. The U.S. 
Climate Action Network is a node of the International Climate 
Action Network, which has 20 nodes around the world. Each of 
the nodes operates independently, and we are all committed to 
justice at the core of our work, and equity----
    Mr. Stauber. And have you done anything about the Uyghurs 
being tortured and killed by the Chinese Communist Party, since 
you have a connection with the Chinese Youth Climate Action 
Network, have you done anything?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Our work in the United States is focused 
specifically on the U.S. Federal Government and the need to pay 
attention to the climate crisis, and----
    Mr. Stauber. OK, so what I am hearing you saying----
    Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. Took the nodes of Climate 
Action Network----
    Mr. Stauber. Ms. Chatterjee, what I am hearing you saying 
is your Climate Action Network in the United States has not 
done anything with the Youth Climate Action Network in China 
reference the Uyghurs.
    Ms. Chatterjee. Our work is focused on the U.S. Federal 
Government and U.S. policies that are put forward by the U.S. 
Federal Government, as well as organizing in our own 
communities around the United States.
    We do engage in ensuring that just policies are put 
forward, both----
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, I just want to make it clear you haven't 
engaged in the Uyghur issue, being tortured and killed. Is that 
correct? With the Climate Action Network, the Youth Climate 
Action Network, you haven't done anything with that.
    Is the Climate Action Network aware of child slave labor in 
Chinese-owned cobalt mines in the Congo?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question. Our work is 
explicitly to make sure that we have a just transition off of 
fossil fuels, so that we can address the climate crisis. As 
part of that----
    Mr. Stauber. OK, so what I am hearing you saying is that 
your Climate----
    Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. We look at labor standards 
and----
    Mr. Stauber. Excuse me, it is my time. It is short time, so 
I just want to be brief here. Your Climate Action Network has 
done nothing about the Chinese cobalt mines in the Congo, where 
they are forcing child slave labor to mine cobalt. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Chatterjee. The work that we have done within the 
United States, for example, is to put forward really strong 
labor standards within Federal policy, which we think is 
critically important for us to achieve a just transition off of 
fossil fuels, but also secure thriving communities where people 
have decent work.
    Mr. Stauber. So, it doesn't appear that you are doing 
anything for the justice of those children forced in the Congo 
to mine cobalt for a green economy. Is that correct?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Well, for example, there are pieces of 
legislation like the Thrive Agreement that has in place labor 
standards that we have fought very hard for. Labor bills such 
as the PRO Act are core to what we put forward, as a climate 
network, to make sure that we are promoting policies where 
people can work with dignity, but we are also solving the 
climate crisis.
    Mr. Stauber. Time is brief. So, Ms. Chatterjee, you do not 
support the United States of America purchasing cobalt that was 
mined with child slave labor, do you?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question. Our views 
around labor are very clear, that we believe that everyone 
should be paid for their work, that everybody should have a 
decent living, and that everyone----
    Mr. Stauber. What is your answer to my question?
    Do you believe the United States should purchase copper 
from foreign countries that use child slave labor to mine?
    The Chairman. You are 1 minute over, and----
    Ms. Herrell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
of my time to Congressman Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. When your time arrives, Ms. Herrell, you can 
do exactly that. We are going back and forth, so I would be 
sequencing Ms. Velazquez next. You will be after that, and I 
will be glad to respect that yield.
    With that, let me now ask Representative Velazquez--she is 
recognized for 5 minutes for any comments and questions she may 
have.
    Ms. Velazquez.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important 
hearing. I would like to address my first question to Mr. 
Forbes.
    In your testimony, you cited a report card that found 99 
percent of NGOs have resources set aside to finance JEDI 
efforts. Yet, the majority do not have substantial ways of 
elevating the voices of Black, Indigenous, and Brown 
communities. Can you identify one strategy you believe, if 
implemented, will help NGOs do a better job of ensuring 
marginalized voices at all levels are heard?
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is a really, 
really important question.
    And while that report card is true, it doesn't speak to all 
the other organizations that are trying really hard to make a 
difference. I think the way to do that is to create space for 
BIPOC leadership in senior staff and on boards, and that takes 
nothing more than the commitment to do that.
    And then, creating the pathways for those individuals to 
succeed and to share their vision----
    Ms. Velazquez. I think it is a very important issue, 
because, after all, when it comes to Indigenous, Black, Brown 
communities, they bear the brunt of environmental injustice in 
this country. So, it is important that when we look at 
solutions on how to address climate change, that they must be 
at the table and in positions that will help shape public 
policy.
    Mr. Forbes, can you discuss the dangers of not having a 
powerful voice from these communities in environmental 
organization?
    How would that affect conservation efforts and 
sustainabilities of those communities?
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you. The No. 1 answer is irrelevance. 
Without bringing in BIPOC leadership and voice, environmental 
conservation organizations risk becoming irrelevant. They are 
not able to understand the issues that our country is 
experiencing today and to move forward in a way that represents 
those issues and connects people to the land in a much more 
holistic way. So, this is really an existential question for 
the environmental movement.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
    Mr. Dosunmu, BIPOC-led groups are an essential part of the 
fight to combat climate change because they disproportionately 
bear the burden of environmental racism. Your organization's 
Climate Funders Justice Pledge is a step in the right 
direction.
    Besides having climate funders take the pledge, are there 
other ways the Donors of Color Network plans to hold funders 
accountable, long-term?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the 
question, Congresswoman.
    We start from the proposition that the communities that are 
closest to the crisis are closest to the solutions. That is 
really the animating idea behind the work that we do at the 
campaign.
    As you have already mentioned, one of the core tenets of 
the campaign is this commitment to get to 30 percent resourcing 
of BIPOC-led organizations over the course of 2 years. So, the 
funders that sign on to the campaign make that pledge and that 
commitment. We are working to create a baseline, a floor of, 
eventually, tens of millions of dollars going to BIPOC-led 
organizations.
    But the other way that we are contributing to the solution 
here is really through transparency, on the idea that sunlight 
is the best disinfectant, that if funders are publicly 
accountable for where their dollars are going, that creates an 
opportunity for communities to hold those funders accountable 
to the pledges that many of them have already made.
    One of the motivating ideas behind the campaign, which is 
about a year old, is that the public statements around justice, 
equity, diversity, and inclusion were not actually being 
reflected in the funding.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
    Mr. Dosunmu. So, it has really created transparency 
opportunities----
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
    Ms. Chatterjee, can you please discuss what success looks 
like for your organization, and how you are internally 
measuring the success of your grant program?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much. We are internally 
measuring the success of our grant program by talking to our 
grantees and our communities and understanding whether they are 
able to use the resources in order to advance climate action 
that puts racial justice and economic justice at the heart of 
their work.
    Ms. Velazquez. Do you, for example, request input from 
those communities about how to improve your grant program?
    Ms. Chatterjee. We do. Yes, we have an adaptive process, 
and the people who are giving the grants out are the 
recipients. So, if there is a recipient group that is not up 
for renewal in 1 year, they become part of the decision-making 
process on a regular basis. And this has been iterative over 
the course of 7 years, and we have consistently adapted so that 
we are making sure that we are having the most impact on the 
communities in the ground, where people need immediate help.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me now turn to the 
gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Herrell.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes and thank you for your 
patience.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
witnesses. Great, great information.
    I want to be brief, because I would like to yield a couple 
of minutes back over to my colleague, Congressman Stauber.
    But Delegate Freeland, thank you so much for your time last 
week when we met and had these discussions. And I just want 
clarity on something.
    In your opening statement, you mentioned--I thought you 
said ethnic graphic studies. I might have gotten that just a 
little bit wrong. But I also know there is a congressional 
commission, a cultural resource investigation. Are those one 
and the same, or is that two separate? I am just looking for 
clarity.
    Mr. Freeland. Those are the same idea, or the same 
investigation. Thank you, Congresswoman, good morning.
    Ms. Herrell. You are welcome. And I agree, until we have 
all the information necessary to make these decisions, and 
certainly input from everybody who is going to be impacted, I 
think we are somewhat putting the cart before the horse with 
making these decisions. And I absolutely support the idea of a 
tribal consultation. And I really support the idea of having a 
field hearing, where we can really sit down and discuss what is 
happening with the allottees, and how this impacts development 
in terms of economic development, personal prosperity, and 
other things.
    I do have a question, very quickly, for Mr.--and I hope I 
say your name correctly--Mr. Dosunmu. Do I say it right?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Yes, you do.
    Ms. Herrell. Great. I am just curious. Before this 20-mile 
barrier, buffer, was put into play, was there any conversation 
between your organization and the Navajo Nation?
    And if not, is that something that your organization would 
be willing to do, facilitate a meeting so that we can ensure 
that we are having the correct conversation with all of the 
interested stakeholders?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Well, I am actually not familiar with our 
engagement on that particular issue, but I will say that 
consultation is a core tenet of the work that we do. It is 
essentially the animating idea, and we work very, very closely 
with movement allies and movement partners across the country 
to make sure their voices are amplified in the Federal 
policymaking process.
    So, I can't speak directly to the issue that you have 
raised, but I can tell you that we are committed, in the main, 
to consultation and engagement as a core tenet of our work.
    Ms. Herrell. OK, thank you. And just a quick comment for 
Mr. Forbes.
    I appreciate your comment about forest management on tribal 
lands and reservations, as opposed to some of our public 
spaces, because there is a night and day difference.
    And Mr. Chair, with that, I would like to yield the balance 
of my time to Congressman Stauber and thank you so much.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Mr. Stauber, you are 
recognized for about 2 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to Ms. Chatterjee.
    Ms. Chatterjee, as the Executive Director of U.S. Climate 
Action Network, and by your previous admission, why aren't you 
supporting labor protections for the Uyghurs?
    Ms. Chatterjee. We do support labor protections within U.S. 
law. Our focus is on U.S. policy, as the U.S. Climate Action 
Network. An example of that are labor provisions that we put 
forward in the Thrive Act, which----
    Mr. Stauber. OK, but I specifically asked about the 
Uyghurs. Can you tell me something concrete with reference to 
labor protections for the Uyghurs?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Our work----
    Mr. Stauber. Yes or no?
    Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. Is for the U.S. Federal 
Government. And our work on making sure that there are strong 
labor standards in place that protect the right of workers to 
unionize and the rights of workers more broadly are within the 
context of U.S. Federal Government----
    Mr. Stauber. OK, so it sounds like you, as the Executive 
Director----
    Ms. Chatterjee [continuing]. And U.S. state government----
    Mr. Stauber. Excuse me, this is my time. We have to be 
brief here. It sounds like you have done no labor protections 
for the Uyghurs.
    And then my last question, should the U.S. Government 
purchase cobalt and other critical minerals that have been 
mined in foreign countries by child slave labor?
    Ms. Chatterjee. It is horrific to enslave a human being, 
and that is a completely unacceptable practice and, sadly, is 
also the history of this very nation.
    Mr. Stauber. Should we----
    Ms. Chatterjee. The history here, we started enslaving 
human beings----
    Mr. Stauber. As a nation, Ms. Chatterjee, I have just a 
brief amount of time. Yes or no, should the United States 
purchase critical minerals or rare Earth minerals, cobalt, et 
cetera, from Chinese-owned mines that are forcing children to 
mine these using slave labor? That is a yes or a no. It is 
not----
    Ms. Chatterjee. No. There are no circumstances where 
enslaving other human beings is at all acceptable.
    Mr. Stauber. So, your answer is no, is that correct, that 
we should not purchase these minerals?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Well----
    Mr. Stauber. OK, is that anywhere on your Climate Action 
Network resume, that we should not be purchasing?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired----
    Mr. Stauber. Because we have the ability to mine these 
minerals here----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Stauber [continuing]. And best labor standards.
    And I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, despite the 
yield. Let me now turn to Representative Levin for his 5 
minutes.
    You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's 
hearing. I think it is an important one, as we evaluate ongoing 
efforts to improve justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion 
initiatives at NGOs and grant-making organizations.
    Promoting JEDI is not only the right thing to do, but we 
also know it leads to better outcomes. Last year, the National 
Academies released a report arguing that advancing JEDI is 
central to Federal efforts seeking to create better 
environmental, economic, and public health outcomes for 
everyone.
    It is also clear we need to address JEDI priorities, 
especially as we seek to meet the moment and rapidly 
decarbonize our society.
    So, as we make Federal investments to address climate 
change, it is also clear we need to center our efforts in the 
principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion if we 
truly want to create durable policies that will lead to better 
outcomes.
    Ms. Chatterjee, I appreciated in your testimony the 
discussion of how improving diversity within the workplace and 
Federal policymaking isn't enough to build equity in furthering 
environmentally just policies. Providing greater access to 
members of historically marginalized communities doesn't 
automatically lead to greater influence, or the advancement of 
equitable and just environmental policies.
    So, based on your personal experience working at a 
mainstream environmental organization, and in aiding other 
organizations in addressing JEDI, do you believe that efforts 
to address JEDI at environmental NGOs result in better outcomes 
in Federal policymaking?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for your question. I do 
believe it results in better outcomes. And we know that the 
converse has resulted in incredibly harmful outcomes. So, if 
you just look at the state of, where there are communities that 
have more asthma, we know that Black people are three times 
more likely to die from asthma. I could continue to give 
examples about lead, about cancer, et cetera.
    But the reality is that communities that are currently 
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and to the impacts 
of pollution were made vulnerable through policy. It is not a 
coincidence. So, it is only policy that can undo it.
    We know what happens when we don't include people in 
decisions. When we do include people in decisions, we can 
actually repair those harms. It is an incredible opportunity at 
a time when we are out of time to address the climate crisis. 
We have to make these massive investments in our infrastructure 
anyway, so we should do so in a way that repairs the harms that 
have come from policy.
    Mr. Levin. Following on what you just said, can you share 
how Federal policy conversations can be structured to maximize 
equity and inclusivity among all stakeholders and, 
specifically, how we can ensure that those whose communities 
are most impacted by policies aren't just offered a seat at the 
table, but are able to actually have influence over that 
policy?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you. I think that there are a number 
of ways for this to happen. I think some of it starts with the 
work that we have been talking about of making sure that 
different groups are around the table. That, in and of itself, 
isn't enough. I think we actually need to prioritize those 
voices in a different way.
    Some of the practices we do every day are--like, we use 
something called progressive stack. So, you are in a room full 
of stakeholders. Some of them come from large environmental 
organizations. Some of them come from grassroots organizations 
that are directly affected on the ground by a facility. In a 
progressive stack, no matter who raises their hand first, you 
would always go to the person who is directly affected at the 
beginning.
    And there are a few other practices like this, but these 
practices we found, over time, we iterate them, we adapt them, 
we find that they give voice to the people who are most 
impacted over time, which is the ultimate goal.
    So, it is not that we have the immediate solution, it is 
that what we can tell you is that, if you continue to adapt and 
then ask questions, find out--``Were you listened to in that 
experience? Did the policy turn out in a way that improved your 
community's outcomes?''
    And if not, why not? Why were there still harmful polluting 
facilities at the end, if you were truly listened to?
    Continuing to adapt and making sure policy is responsive is 
critically important.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    With the time I have I will turn to you, Mr. Dosunmu. You 
noted a New School study that found only 1.3 percent of the 
$1.34 billion awarded by 12 national environmental funders goes 
to people of color-led, justice-focused groups, and you called 
it a moral failing and an ineffective and losing strategy.
    Why do you think we need to improve--obviously, we need to 
improve that number, but why do you think that is so important, 
as we consider tackling climate change?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congressman. And in the 
time you have, I will just very quickly say that we are not 
currently resourcing the best, most transformative solutions. 
And we are losing the opportunity to put some of our most 
thoughtful thinkers and advocates and players on the field.
    So, if you look at what BIPOC-led organizations and BIPOC 
leaders are doing, is they are radically imagining a new world, 
they are radically imagining just transitions. They are 
thinking about the intersection of the environment with other 
policy issues, and they are bringing new solutions to the 
table. Resourcing those groups will only further empower that 
critical work.
    Mr. Levin. I am over time, but I appreciate the thoughtful 
discussion. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields, thank you very much.
    And now, seeing that there are no Republican colleagues to 
turn to, Mr. Ranking Member, I am going to proceed with the 
Members that are on the list.
    Representative Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
sir.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Let me now move to Representative Brownley. 
The gentlelady is recognized for any questions she might have.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And really, thank 
you for holding this hearing.
    I wanted to ask a question of Ms. Chatterjee. And first, I 
would just say that cultural change is really hard within an 
organization. And I know you know this, but it must be 
intentional, razor focused, and it must persist and build every 
year, year after year. And cultural change in the Federal 
Government, I think, is probably the hardest one of all.
    I mean, just think about the simple example we have used 
today about jargon. I mean, we are using it in this hearing. If 
somebody just tuned in and we were talking about JEDI, are we 
talking about Star Wars or are we talking about justice, 
equity, diversity, or inclusion?
    So, it is a simple example, but cultural change is really, 
really hard, and you can't change culture without measuring 
progress and where you are going to go. I think you have hit 
upon this somewhat, but I wanted to ask the question: How do we 
measure justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion when we are 
talking about philanthropy, Federal Government, state 
government?
    I know we have mentioned sunshine and transparency. Are 
there other variables for measurement?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much for the question. Of 
these issues we are talking about, diversity is the relatively 
easy one to measure, right? Like, either you have diversity, or 
you don't have diversity, and I think that is important to 
measure.
    I think that then there are metrics you can start to look 
at around inclusion, around justice, around equity. We 
obviously ask those questions around race, gender, and ability, 
to make sure we have people in the room. But then we are also 
constantly asking questions about--Are we giving voice to the 
right people? Is the outcome of our work viewed favorably by 
those who have previously been excluded?
    I think a lot of it, again, as I said earlier, is 
iterative. But a lot of it is systematizing that learning. So, 
making sure that in every meeting you have that checklist of 
questions you are asking. In every meeting you are asking an 
evaluative question at the end. Like, how did we do in this 
meeting? And how did we do in this process? How did we do in 
this project? And continuing to change over time.
    I think, really, the beginning of it is making clear what 
your goals are and then measuring yourself against it, and 
making sure that it is really, as you say, incorporated into 
the leadership and the culture of the organization.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that. And this question is 
really to any of the witnesses.
    We have briefly mentioned just transition, and just 
transition certainly comes up in a lot of our conversations and 
is a critically important piece of environmental policy. So, we 
know we need to do it.
    But so far, we are not able to cite that many examples of 
just transition. And I am just curious, from any of the 
witnesses, if you can point me to a couple of good examples 
around just transition.
    Mr. Dosunmu. Well, one thing I will say is that we work 
very, very closely with a number of movement leaders and 
movement allies across the country that are very active on that 
very question.
    In particular, the Gulf Coast Center for Law and Policy, 
which has been doing a lot of really innovative thinking in the 
Gulf South around a Green New Deal for the Gulf South, thinking 
about how jobs and housing and transportation and health care 
intersect with the environment and the climate crisis, and how 
we can leverage kind of a movement around justice to address 
all of those issues.
    So, I think, again, it goes to this idea that those who are 
closest to the challenges are closest to the solutions and 
lifting up the folks who are doing the really innovative work 
to light the path forward for us.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I see my time is up.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much and thank you for your 
questions.
    Mr. Westerman, is there a Member on your side of the aisle 
that would keep this alternating rotation going? Is there a 
Member that wishes to be recognized that has not been 
recognized?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, let me now turn to Representative 
Tonko.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 
I know you were having some difficulties with the connection.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Until we get that figured out, let me 
recognize Representative Dingell for 5 minutes.
    You are recognized, Representative.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening today's hearing. This is such an important topic 
across our country.
    The loss of nature and environmental destruction has 
disproportionately affected low-income communities of color. In 
fact, communities of color are three times more likely to live 
in nature-deprived areas, and more than 76 percent of low-
income communities of color are located in nature-deprived 
areas.
    We also know that inequitable access to nature's benefits 
has casual and correlated relationships to disparities in 
public health, economic prosperity, and vulnerability to the 
effects of climate change.
    My colleague, Rashida Tlaib, and I--who is on this 
Committee, as well--have some areas that abut each other that 
we work very hard together on this issue.
    Ms. Chatterjee and Mr. Forbes, I am going to ask you, what 
advice do you have for environmental NGOs for accountability 
measures to ensure that communities of color, Indigenous 
peoples, and low-income communities are receiving an equitable 
share of Federal and philanthropic conservation investments?
    And how can NGOs use accountability to increase equitable 
access to nature's benefits?
    Whichever one of you wants to go first.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Congresswoman. Well said. I think 
there are many steps to accountability, right?
    One is stating publicly why these organizations are doing 
the work, so that the rest of the community can hold them 
accountable to that.
    I think another measure of accountability is how they are 
actually using their money. Is it going into under-served 
communities? Who is actually benefiting from the work that they 
are doing?
    I think how they use their endowments matters at this 
critical moment. Is it more important to be around for 100 
years, or to use the next 5 years to move the needle?
    Another critical part of accountability, I think, is 
representation. Are sufficient people of color--50 percent, 60 
percent--on staffs and boards?
    Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Chatterjee?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Yes, I will just add to that, agree with 
all of that, and say that I think there has to be a genuine 
willingness to share power and, therefore, to give up power and 
make sure that other voices get to be heard within 
conversations.
    I think that Mr. Forbes raised previously that a lot of the 
origin stories of large environmental organizations come from 
royalty, colonialists, people who actually stole land. And I 
think that there needs to be a willingness to address the 
history of the organization, but also a willingness to give up 
power, whether that comes in the form of time, money, or 
access.
    If we want to win, it is in service of justice--it is in 
service of equity that we ask our fellow leaders to bring 
others into the conversation and bring others into the room 
where decisions are being made.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you for that. Over the past year, we 
have seen an increase in financial and human resource 
commitments toward justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. 
But there is a lack of data indicating progress.
    For non-profit fundraisers, the lack of diversity in donor 
bases, fundraising teams, and leadership at the top often 
leaves organizations without a clear path to achieve equity. I 
actually--this is a personal--before I came to the Congress, I 
was president of a foundation and was on many boards. And this 
accountability and this lack of data is a real issue as we 
measure this, going forward.
    And we are going to run out of time--and maybe you can do 
this for the record--but what guidance do you have for 
environmental non-profits and funders to better identify and 
measure the kinds of investments that would improve the ability 
of communities of color and historically marginalized 
communities to advance public policy?
    Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Dosunmu, maybe quickly you both 
could answer that. But you have 12 seconds, so maybe we have 
Mr. Dosunmu do it, because he didn't speak before.
    Mr. Dosunmu. I will do it very quickly and just say that 
one of the ways that we do this is actually by prompting them 
to do the data analysis.
    One of the things that we found when we started our work is 
that a number of funders really had not thought to do that kind 
of analysis. So, we have actually been working in partnership 
with funders and with the data community to innovate solutions 
around the data capture, the data collection, and the data 
analysis, so that funders can actually do it. But it started 
with us actually asking them for the data and the information, 
and that is something that you all can help with in a big way.
    Mrs. Dingell. I want to continue to work with all of you. I 
am out of time.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but I would like to stay close 
to this. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields. 
Let me recognize Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
    Commissioner, you are recognized.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say 
thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. My question 
will be to Delegate Freeland.
    Can you elaborate on some of your concerns with the 
Administration decision regarding the buffer zone around the 
Chaco Canyon, particularly with respect to the formal tribal 
consultation?
    And my second question will be, do you understand how that 
decision to withdraw these areas around the Canyon may impact 
the Navajo Nation's economic well-being?
    [No response.]
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I don't know if the Delegate is 
speaking.
    Mr. Freeland. I am sorry, I muted myself. Good morning, 
Congresswoman, thank you for the question. From New Mexico, 
good morning.
    Related to the impacts, or the potential impacts, that this 
could cause related to the buffer zone, the proposed buffer 
zone was started, I understand, at a 20-mile discussion. It was 
later reduced down to 10. The Navajo Nation did seek a 
compromise just to have our people to be heard. There was no 
consultation at that time and continues to be no consultation 
with the Navajo Nation related to the buffer zone.
    Consultation did occur with other tribes, but the medium 
was to meet the 10-mile buffer zone as a compromise to 5. That 
is why we reduced it. We did pass a resolution through our 
Council, our Navajo Nation Council, to make it a 5-mile buffer 
zone.
    So, that is the gist of where we sought to seek this 
mediation, was to meet that halfway. And the Navajo Nation is--
just for the record--working on a lot of climate change 
efforts, as well. We do have a climate change adaptation plan, 
so we are working on several issues related to climate change 
here on the Navajo Nation. Thank you.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. My question will be then how important 
is it that we do have a formal process of tribal consultation 
occur prior to making the decision, not after the fact?
    And how would this have helped raise awareness about the 
decision's potential adverse implications for your communities?
    Mr. Freeland. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    This decision was put forth, I think, without any, really, 
understanding to the severity of the impacts that this could 
make to our people, who are those individual landowners. I 
think they were overlooked.
    And, with all due respect to the NGOs and other tribes, no 
consideration was given to them at hand. So, this decision was 
put forth at--whether it was influential or political, but this 
decision was severe enough to make a huge impact to our Navajo 
people there, at the local level.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Delegate.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me now turn to 
Representative Tonko.
    You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Tonko. Can you hear me, Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, I apologize. We have had some problem with 
our audio this morning. Thank you for your patience, and I 
thank all of our witnesses for joining us and for the work that 
you do.
    Ms. Chatterjee, in your testimony you discuss the lengthy 
and time-consuming nature of applying to many Federal grant 
programs that are designed to increase access to critical 
services such as clean energy, drinking water, workforce 
training, and infrastructure. What are some of the greatest 
challenges that small or new organizations face throughout this 
process?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much. It is a capacity issue, 
predominantly. Organizations that are set up to have full-time 
staff to keep on top of where there are requests for proposals 
are able to access these resources. But organizations that are 
actually doing the work in their communities have many fewer 
people who are spending their time looking through the Federal 
Register for grant opportunities, probably zero people, and 
many fewer people who are able to read through dozens of pages 
of instructional text, much less the incredibly detailed 
requirements.
    So, I think, to open this up to our communities, we 
actually have to change some of these requirements, which is 
what we have learned to do iteratively through our own very 
small grant-making process.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And you also mentioned the importance 
of multi-year grants in your testimony. Last year, 
environmental foundations awarded more than 99 percent more 
funding to White-led organizations for multi-year grants, while 
BIPOC-led organizations received less than 1 percent of multi-
year operational budget grants.
    So, Ms. Chatterjee, why are multi-year and capacity-
building grants so important, particularly for BIPOC-led or 
grassroots organizations?
    Ms. Chatterjee. They are incredibly important for 
stability. A lot of our organizations that are working on the 
ground in communities actually don't have the same care 
infrastructure or physical infrastructure of larger 
organizations. The same kind of--like, even public transit, 
just the same infrastructure. So, there is an inherent 
unpredictability of having been made vulnerable through policy 
over decades and even centuries.
    And the stability of multi-year grant-giving makes it so 
people can make decisions about maybe we can hire a staff 
member to do this really important clean water project, to do 
this really important climate resilience project. It is really 
hard to hire somebody if you, literally, have 12 months in 
which to make a hiring decision, hire them, train them, get 
them doing the work, and then suddenly the time is up.
    I think part of it is just the inherent instability in 
which we are working means even longer multi-year grants would 
be helpful. And then you get shorter grants, and you find that 
it is untenable, from an implementation and planning 
perspective.
    Mr. Tonko. I hear you. So, it fundamentally focuses on the 
fairness of it all, and the resources you need to compete and 
compete effectively.
    From your perspective, how does increased funding through 
multi-year grants increase an NGO's competitiveness in the 
Federal grants process?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Again, I think it is the same kind of 
capacity constraints. Like, there are organizations that are 
able to have--I mean, even to have a development director who 
has even 2 percent of their time to look at opportunities for 
funding.
    I think that the other side of this is that there should 
be, actually, probably fewer openings for funding, but more 
time on outreach, so that, actually, you don't have to, as an 
organization, have somebody full-time looking for these 
opportunities, but there is actually staff whose job it is to 
go look at who is actually working in these communities, who 
could actually deliver these outcomes that we need in terms of 
climate resilience, clean water, transit equity, whatever it 
is, make sure that the Federal Government is actually doing 
that outreach so it is not just on the organization.
    With multi-year funding, the organization can put some 
capacity to it, but it is still going to be limited, and it 
needs to come from both directions.
    Mr. Tonko. All right, thank you for that. And it is clear 
to me that communities facing environmental injustice, as well 
as rural, disadvantaged, and impoverished communities in all of 
our districts, bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, 
and yet lack adequate access to critical Federal programs.
    Ensuring that grant-making organizations reflect our 
nation's diverse tapestry and supporting the communities that 
have historically been left behind will be the way that we 
right the wrongs from decades of disinvestment and help us 
unlock America's full potential.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. And, again, sorry for 
the technical problems this morning.
    The Chairman. I am glad you got out. Thank you very much. 
The gentleman yields.
    The whole issue about how agencies react strikes me--I 
recall, during the previous administration, when Secretary 
Zinke was in charge of Interior, he hired an old football buddy 
to manage grants and cooperative agreements for the Department 
of the Interior. We raised the issue.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. A disruption of work that had 
been ongoing on issues such as climate change and effect. That 
was the authority within DOI to do exactly that, and I think 
that is what Mr. Graves was complaining about. And I hope, 
going forward, that there is some understanding that that kind 
of authority should not be all encompassing, as it was 
previously.
    I am glad that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are coming to that recognition that we came to a while back. 
But having said that, let me now ask Mr. McEachin.
    You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
starting this very important conversation, or continuing this 
very important conversation. I would like to start off by 
asking Mr. Dosunmu, whose name I have just butchered, and I 
apologize.
    Mr. Levin asked you a question that you gave a very 
thoughtful answer to concerning, really, the importance of 
people of color and Indigenous people being able to get 
involved in the environmental justice process. Can you explain 
some of the challenges you had faced with getting funders to 
recognize that importance that you speak of, of racial and 
economic justice as a part of funding?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congressman, for the 
question.
    The biggest challenges are that there is this set of 
unfortunate implicit biases that have shaped the funding 
community for a very long time, rooted in the lack of 
diversity, which we have already talked quite a bit about here 
today. So, part of the work is actually getting those funders 
to move beyond the inflexibility of their funding practices to 
see the work that is happening in our communities.
    It is a misnomer to suggest that communities of color are 
not involved in the environmental movement. They are just not 
resourced. In many ways, they are leading the movement. But 
funders can't see that, because they are wed to traditional 
funding practices, they are wed to a set of implicit biases.
    So, part of what we do is really highlight the work that is 
happening on the ground, highlight how it is shifting the power 
dynamics, and really driving the movement forward, and really 
put that in front of funders and force them to reckon with 
that.
    And as I said, we wrote to all of the major funders and we 
asked them, ``Do you think, given the work that is happening on 
the ground, that 1.3 percent is a workable number, is a good 
number?'' And none of them said yes. Well, if you agree that it 
is not, then you have to take action to change your practices.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that. And this next question 
might be a little bit of a curve ball, so if you need to think 
about it and send us an answer, that is fine.
    But my office, along with other Members, have written to 
some of these funders, asking them to reconsider their 
practices and include Indigenous people, people of color in 
terms of their funding, even put folks within their own 
organizations who look like you and I do in charge of some of 
the money as they dole it out to these groups.
    What else can we do, not necessarily through legislation, 
but through moral persuasion or our bully pulpit as 
Congresspersons to help in this cause?
    Mr. Dosunmu. I think you hit the nail right on the head, 
Congressman, that it is the use of your bully pulpit and of the 
moral persuasion power of this body to push the field in a 
positive direction. And many of you, including yourself, 
Congressman, have been allies to our work in that regard, and 
we would encourage others who have voices, particularly those 
who have voices with major funders in their communities, to 
start asking the questions.
    And, again, I come back to that piece around some of what 
is able to persist in terms of these practices is able to 
persist because we don't ask the questions, we don't prompt the 
answers. So, really, part of the work is asking the questions, 
asking funders to be transparent, asking them where their 
funding is going currently. And that has a way of forcing them 
to think internally and make changes. So, that bully pulpit 
piece is, really, critically important.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
    Ms. Chatterjee, can you share with us some concrete ways 
that U.S. Climate Action Network has elevated the voices of 
Black and Indigenous people of color within the organization?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Yes, thank you. USCAN has been on quite a 
transformation process, and I don't want to pretend that our 
journey is done. We are constantly learning. But we have been 
able to pull our organization to putting justice at the heart 
of the work.
    And part of that is through giving explicit stipends for 
collaborative work to members who are organizing in communities 
of color and are people of color themselves. Part of that is 
making sure that, when we send representatives, whether it is 
to Federal Government processes, or to United Nations 
processes, that we prioritize being represented by people of 
color. Our full membership votes, it is democratic, but we ask 
them to prioritize putting people of color into positions of 
access and influence.
    So, those are just a few of the examples of what we have 
done, and we continue to be learning and on the journey.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you for your hard work.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McEachin. The gentleman 
yields. Let me now turn to the Chair of the Subcommittee.
    Representative Porter, you are recognized.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Funders and Big 
Green organizations, and Black, Indigenous, and community 
leaders of color all seem to agree with the need to get more 
money to rural and minority-led non-profits. But somewhere 
along the way things are breaking down.
    Mr. Dosunmu, why is that happening?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. The main 
thing, again, it goes to those implicit biases. It goes to 
those ingrained practices. It goes to, in fact, who the funders 
are talking to and hearing from.
    I think part of the work of shifting the field in a 
different direction is actually creating tables and spaces for 
funders to see the work that is happening on the ground in 
communities and be able to fund that work. And they have blind 
spots currently that don't allow them to see it.
    So, part of what we have to do is really push them to get 
beyond those blind spots and see the impactful work that is 
happening.
    Ms. Porter. I know there is a big size difference, in some 
cases, between sort of the largest foundations and those 
organizations and non-profits that are often led by and 
focusing on involving and engaging Black, Indigenous, and 
people of color communities.
    Do you ever hear the argument that funders don't want to 
take on the sort of responsibility of these smaller 
organizations, and sort of the smaller the organization, even 
though it is less donor dollars, somehow the donor feels that 
they would be taking on too much, they don't want to be the 
sole funder?
    And how can we deal with that argument, if you have heard 
that?
    Mr. Dosunmu. We have absolutely heard that. And the reality 
is that it is a false concept. And it creates a vicious cycle, 
because they say, ``Well, we don't want to fund the smallest 
organizations.'' The smallest organizations don't get funding, 
and they don't get the opportunity to grow and build capacity.
    So, part of what we have really driven home is that funding 
these organizations is not a liability. Funding these 
organizations is funding the most impactful work that is 
happening on the ground in communities across the country. They 
are the organizations that are moving the needle. So, by not 
funding them, you are missing out on the opportunity to really 
change the game.
    It is driving home that message and really making the moral 
case for it. But also making the strategic case for it is that 
it is not a liability, it is an asset to the movement to fund 
these organizations.
    Ms. Porter. Yes, because for many of those smaller 
organizations, I would think the choice is going to be between 
having maybe a sole donor or no donor at all----
    Mr. Dosunmu. Right.
    Ms. Porter [continuing]. And ceasing to exist. So, I think 
that is really important.
    You mentioned about getting the right people at the table, 
and I wanted to follow up about that. Do these larger donors, 
funders, and bigger green organizations, do they have the right 
staff to be able to improve, in terms of seeing and recognizing 
the groups that are closest to the communities who have been 
hurt by environmental damage and are in need of environmental 
justice?
    Mr. Dosunmu. The short answer is no, Congresswoman, they 
don't. But that is a critical question, because it highlights 
the ways in which each leg of the JEDI stool is connected to 
the other.
    You can't get to real and meaningful equity until you get 
to real and meaningful diversity. But the lack of diversity is 
what drives the inequity in the system. So, part of the 
conversations that we are having is not only about pushing 
those funders to see BIPOC organizations that are doing the 
work, but also pushing those funders to build the internal 
infrastructure and the internal commitments that will get them 
to a place where they can affirm that work.
    So, it is not just on them to say we are making a 
commitment to transparency, we are making a commitment to the 
30 percent, it is also on them to say we are going to make a 
commitment to do the culture change work that is required of us 
in order to get to those numbers.
    Ms. Porter. In your testimony, you mentioned California's 
environmental justice legislation as a success story. Can you 
just say a little bit more in your final few seconds here about 
the coalition that helped make that a reality, and what lessons 
we might learn?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely. We emphasize the work of the CEGA, 
and their work in really convening a table of community 
organizations to advance a number of initiatives in California.
    And the important thing to note about that is that what 
California has done really has been the model for President 
Biden's Justice40 Initiative. So, that is another way in which 
BIPOC leadership is actually lighting the way for Federal 
advancement on this very important issue. If you don't have the 
California laws, you don't have the New Jersey laws, you don't 
have the current Federal commitment at all.
    So, we are losing out on an opportunity to support that 
work when we don't fund the BIPOC organizations like CEGA and 
others that have been critical to the work in California.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and let me 
now invite and recognize Representative Soto for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Back in 2014, in Florida, 
when I was in the State Legislature, we had an amendment that 
got on the ballot, known popularly as Amendment 1, and it was a 
public land acquisition amendment. And I had the opportunity to 
work with some major conservation organizations in the 
district, Florida Conservation Voters, Audubon Society, Sierra 
Club.
    And it was toward the end, around September, that we had 
conversations about how to outreach with the Hispanic 
community. And we did this at a local area in Kissimmee, as we 
were talking about how important the environment was to 
communities of color, to our rural communities. So, they put in 
money in the last month-and-a-half for Hispanic, Spanish 
language outreach. What did we see? The amendment passed by 70 
percent of the vote. But among the Hispanic community, we voted 
for it by 75 percent. We outpaced the rest of the state.
    And after bringing folks out to the Kissimmee--first of 
all, it was funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So, 
we are already seeing Federal programs make a big difference. 
But they saw folks are very committed to being outdoors, as 
Floridians, very into recreation, hiking, kayaking, fishing, 
hunting, doing all these different things outdoors. Even a lot 
of our celebrations are outdoors in these areas--or Moss Park, 
another area that benefited from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
    Our communities are also affected through utilities, where 
they are sited, the air and water quality that relates to that. 
And we see this also in our territories like Puerto Rico, as 
well as tribes like the Seminole Tribe in Florida, which is why 
we are excited that we passed a few of these key issues out of 
Committee.
    The Kissimmee River Wild and Scenic River bill, which I 
appreciate the Chairman helping pass that out, that will help 
clean water and recreation in a very Hispanic area of our 
district, and a very rural area, as well.
    Restoring Resilient Reefs passed out of the House just 
recently, which is key for our state's clean water, habitat, 
tourism, you name it. Again, lots of communities of color 
living in the Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County areas.
    And then a billion just recently by President Biden for the 
Everglades, biggest award by far ever to help with clean water, 
habitat, recreation. We are seeing these themes over and over. 
And that also affects the Seminole Tribe, which for years has 
had to endure terrible water quality because of pollution.
    Locally, we just had OUC agree to close their coal plant 
over the next few years. And local Latinos with Moms Clean Air 
Force were a big part of that. I was proud to work with them, 
and now we are working on solar. Why? Because that coal plant 
was in their community in East Orange County. And they stood 
up, and I was proud to join them.
    But those are some examples of folks maybe not always early 
on, but eventually realizing, wow, this is not only morally 
right--which is the most important thing--but it is also a 
smart, long-term strategy to build lasting coalitions to enact 
change.
    Ms. Chatterjee, in your testimony, you briefly had 
mentioned how addressing only diversity or inclusion alone is 
insufficient to move the needle in any meaningful way. Can you 
elaborate on why it is critical for mainstream environmental 
organizations to advance all the principles of JEDI: justice, 
equity, diversity, and inclusion?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you for the question and for sharing 
those examples from Florida.
    Diversity is an important basis and first step, but it is 
not the whole journey. People don't know what they don't know. 
You can hire a group of people of color, but if they are not 
familiar with the situation at hand, it takes time to develop 
expertise and understand what the equity and justice 
interventions needed are made. And there is nothing necessarily 
about being a person of color that inherently makes you 
understand these issues, right?
    So, even though it is a critically important first step, it 
is totally insufficient to actually achieving justice and 
equity. There have to be additional steps made both for 
inclusiveness, so people stay once you have hired a diverse 
workforce, but then also to make sure that that next step is 
made to putting racial justice and economic justice at the 
heart of the initiatives and work.
    Mr. Soto. I am glad you mentioned that, Ms. Chatterjee. I 
think if we all focus on hiring local, hiring early as we are 
working on initiatives across the United States, that is at 
least incremental change we could do that--we have seen work in 
Florida--as we work on the greater wealth consolidation issues 
that affect not only the environmental community, but, let's 
face it, all of America.
    Thank you for the time and your focus on this today, 
everyone.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields. 
Let me now invite the Vice Chair of the Committee.
    Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, of course, all the 
witnesses that have joined us today.
    The work this Committee has done to dismantle environmental 
racism, restore and preserve our nation's lands, and uplift the 
importance of clean air and a healthy environment has had a 
significant impact on the life of people in Chicagoland.
    However, it is well known that we, as lawmakers, don't do 
this work alone. As elected representatives, we have a 
responsibility to carry with us the voices of our constituents, 
and with that comes great responsibility.
    That said, we reach out to the brightest minds across the 
world, many of which I would argue reside in my district, to 
craft the most impactful policies. And it is important that the 
partners that we work closely with understand the practical and 
tangible benefits of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, 
and why, historically, that has not always been the case.
    Some questions for our panelists.
    Mr. Forbes, it is well documented that the early American 
conservation movement was exclusionary and often disparaging of 
communities of color. You have already pointed to some 
instances. In fact, writings from an early leader of the 
conservation movement described Indigenous and Black people as 
dirty, lazy, and uncivilized.
    In your view, how has that troubled foundation determined 
which environmental policies tend to be prioritized, and are 
certain communities and their priorities still being left out?
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you so much, Congressman. Of course, they 
are, is the short answer.
    The origin stories that you speak about, we in the 
environmental movement, we have to speak about them. We have to 
acknowledge them. And that is the only way--it is not about 
shaming us or punishing us, it is the only way to liberate us 
to actually do the work that we need to do.
    A key tenet of this conversation has been about 
prioritizing the most affected. I think the only path to 
getting there is by acknowledging how we have failed to do that 
in the past. Every time I have seen that happen, sir, I think 
the organizations have come out of that process stronger and 
more capable then of making space and standing beside others to 
allow them to lead and carry the work.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
    A question for Mr. Dosunmu. In my community, organizers on 
the ground are often driving most of our impactful climate 
wins. In Chicago's Southeast and Southwest sides, communities 
are fighting to reject plants that are proposed that would 
increase pollution levels in an already burdened community.
    Mr. Dosunmu, from your perspective, why is it important 
that these stories and locally driven environmental movements 
are being shared and supported by mainstream environmental 
organizations and foundations?
    Mr. Dosunmu. Thank you so much, Congressman, and I will 
just say that the work happening in your district is very close 
to my heart. I lived on the South Side of Chicago during 
college, so I know that work and that area very well, and the 
organizations that are lifting up that work.
    And what I will say is that many funders are operating 
under a false notion that you can do environmental work without 
power-building work. And I think part of what the examples that 
you have laid out in your district highlight is that 
communities of color understand that that work cannot be 
disconnected from power-building work. So, they are actually 
working not just to tackle kind of traditional environmental 
notions, but they are also working to build meaningful 
political power among those residents, so that they are able to 
really shift the center of gravity, environmentally.
    The reason it is important to lift up those examples is 
that it really highlights the intersectionality of 
environmentalism and meaningful power-building in communities 
of color.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, and I will just end with this. Black 
and Brown leaders and organizations and individuals must be 
engaged, uplifted, and supported if we are to truly tackle the 
climate crisis.
    Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia. Let me now 
recognize Representative Cohen.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you are recognized.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Representative Trahan, you are recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 
witnesses here today. I am so glad we are having this hearing 
today. If future generations are going to care for and support 
the protection of public lands and waters, then public land 
agencies will have to work to ensure that these places are 
accessible and relevant to the day-to-day lives of residents.
    The city that I am from, Lowell, Massachusetts, is 
incredibly diverse. More than 60 languages are spoken 
throughout the city. And immigrants have come from all over to 
make Lowell home. My Brazilian grandmother, who immigrated to 
Lowell, used to work in the very mill that is now my 
congressional office, and this is the American Dream at its 
absolute best.
    Not only is a former mill my congressional office, but it 
is also part of the Lowell National Historic Park. The Park is 
a treasure in our community and includes a museum that educates 
visitors about Lowell's rich history as an industrial mill town 
that immigrants like my grandparents helped build. Right now, 
the Park is working with the local community to co-create a new 
exhibit called ``One City, Many Cultures,'' and this exhibit 
will update the existing immigrant exhibit that opened back in 
1988.
    Over the last 30 years, Lowell's demographics, like many 
other cities, continue to change, making an update necessary. 
And this new exhibit will tell the stories of diverse cultures, 
as well as the cultural changes that Lowell has witnessed. When 
it is completed, it will feature panels written in English and 
Spanish. Viewers will be able to listen to Kami being spoken, 
and there will even be a section dedicated to a storybook in 
which guests can record their own stories.
    This initiative demonstrates the potential that urban parks 
have to educate, connect, and strengthen our local communities. 
However, uneven access to parks, especially urban parks, and 
funding systems that have historically steered their 
investments toward richer locales, have ignored a vital group 
of stakeholders and change leaders for far too long.
    One way to increase access is for agencies, as well as non-
profits, to adopt and implement policies so that public lands 
and conservation workforce reflects the growing diversity in 
our nation, both in rank-and-file positions and throughout the 
leadership ranks.
    Ms. Chatterjee, thank you for being here. I am wondering if 
you can speak to the importance of access to urban parks for 
communities like Lowell.
    Ms. Chatterjee. Sure, thank you so much for your question. 
I actually went to Lowell for a big Bengali conference once, 
just a testament to immigrant communities being attracted to 
Lowell, Massachusetts.
    But yes, it is incredibly important in terms of making sure 
that young people have access to supportive infrastructure, 
care and physical infrastructure and parks within their 
communities in terms of the future we want.
    I spend my time working to fight the climate crisis so that 
we can have communities where our kids can thrive, learn about 
our history, and have jobs. And I think that, historically, 
there have been big efforts to push these things.
    Right now, one of the things we have been talking about is 
the Civilian Climate Corps. One of the things we could do with 
the Civilian Climate Corps is make sure that we do have urban 
parks being put together, but also rural parks being put 
together. There is no reason why we shouldn't be putting every 
single person to work putting together the things that we need 
as communities, the core things we need in order to thrive.
    So, I think it is critically important as just a piece of 
what makes our communities beautiful and what we are all 
fighting for.
    Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you for visiting Lowell, and, 
hopefully, we can welcome you back there soon.
    I grew up in Lowell, and Urban Park had an incredible 
impact on my childhood and my upbringing. I am wondering what 
you see as the greatest challenge to creating more urban parks 
across our country like the one in Lowell.
    Ms. Chatterjee. I think the greatest challenge is lack of 
funding, and the greatest challenge to lack of funding is the 
lack of our ability to get policies through, which comes back 
to what we are all here to talk about, which is why can't we 
get these policies done that we need?
    It is because we are not being inclusive and bringing in 
the communities that actually have the power of the community 
behind them to get things passed--not just talked about, but 
actually passed. So, having the money means that we can have 
the parks.
    Mrs. Trahan. Right. Well, I appreciate all of that, and 
certainly I believe that all politics is local. But I also 
think that all activism, all history, and certainly our action 
on the climate, is also local, too.
    I appreciate your answers and your being here today. Thank 
you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Let me recognize 
Representative Tlaib for 5 minutes.
    Your questions, comments?
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for our 
panelists. I really appreciate, Chairman, you being such a 
champion on environmental justice issues. You know how personal 
that issue is to me.
    Some of you might know already, I represent some of the 
most polluted neighborhoods in Michigan. And for us, 
environmental justice isn't a choice. It is a daily fight for 
survival. Many of my residents have steel mills and oil 
refineries for neighbors, literally feet away from their front 
steps. They have auto factories and power plants in their 
backyards.
    The cumulative impact of all these pollution sources 
combining together is a toxic cocktail that my residents ingest 
every single day, and so do their children. These communities 
have high rates of asthma, cancer, and respiratory disease. Our 
environmental decision making is literally killing communities 
of color.
    And these communities have been shut out, always, in 
policymaking and advocacy spaces for far too long.
    You all know the fossil fuel industry, the lobbyists. I 
left another Committee hearing, and just hearing of the 
gaslighting and the misleading information by the industry, 
changing their names, talking about it in a way when, at the 
end, we are still breathing dirty air.
    So, I would like to emphasize the sense of urgency we need 
at this moment. If you have 20 major source air polluters 
within a couple of miles of your home, you are going to act 
with a lot more urgency than someone living in a safer, cleaner 
community. Look where shutting our frontline environmental 
justice communities out of the halls of power has gotten us. I 
mean, look at it. No meaningful climate action as we continue 
hurtling toward planetary doom. Corporate polluters continue to 
make record profits. The more even subsidy--we give them 
everything. They keep, again, profiting off of our public 
health disaster and our environmental disaster.
    So, I am proud that in my district we have so many 
environmental justice groups that have the JEDI values 
ingrained into the fabric of their organizations. Groups like 
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, Solardarity, We Want 
Green, Too are walking the walk, and it is part of what makes 
me very much an effective partner here in bringing their voices 
to the halls of Congress.
    Ms. Chatterjee, just even hearing you talk about this, I 
don't know, it just reminds me how exhausting it is, how 
incredibly exhausting it is that we are giving these platforms, 
talking about it over and over again. Like, I am tired of the 
public hearings. I go, Chairman. I go, I submit comments, I get 
my residents to submit comments, and nothing changes. It is 
exhausting.
    Ms. Chatterjee, how would empowering frontline Black, 
Brown, and Indigenous environmental justice leaders actually 
impact Federal environmental policymaking change for U.S. 
climate action? What does empowerment really look like?
    Tell my colleagues on this Committee what to do.
    Ms. Chatterjee. Thank you so much. I think what to do is 
know the names of the environmental justice communities in your 
district. Talk to them. Bring them in. Make sure they are the 
first folks that you ask when a decision is coming up.
    Make sure that when we are getting closer and closer, and 
negotiations are happening, what continually feels like it 
happens is that the most important issues for Black and Brown 
communities get negotiated away by people who don't speak for 
that community. So, making sure that doesn't happen is an 
incredibly powerful position to be in.
    And I am just grateful that we have all of you in that 
position, because we are out of time. Lives are at stake, and 
we have to make this change in who we listen to and who we 
believe has the solutions. And I think you are doing it, a lot 
of you are doing it, and it is nice to see, but we just have to 
go faster and harder.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes, the Chairman needs more help from our 
Committee, and we are going to work hard in getting that done.
    Mr. Dosunmu--I hope I said it right, because people mess up 
my name--your testimony mentioned, of course, the $1.34 billion 
awarded to 12 national environmental funders, and only 1.3 
percent went to communities of color-led, justice-focused 
groups. What would directing hundreds of millions--I mean, I 
already know this answer, but I want colleagues to understand, 
and I think it was something that Ms. Chatterjee kind of talked 
about. But how can it really--because I know it will accelerate 
that kind of urgency I have been talking about. But give us 
some examples of how injecting and investing in the communities 
impacted the most would look like in policymaking.
    Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your 
question. I grew up in a community very similar to the one you 
represent, that you have described, around these issues. And 
what I know, again, is that the most transformative solutions 
are happening at the community level.
    So, injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into BIPOC-
led organizations will get you imaginative thinking like the 
thinking that the Gulf Coast Center for Law and Policy is doing 
around just transition, or the work that Green Latinos is doing 
around closing toxic landfills, or the work that the California 
Environmental Justice Alliance is doing to pull Black, Brown, 
and Indigenous communities together to really push for 
transformative legislation at the state level.
    There are tangible benefits to injecting money into BIPOC-
led organizations, and the most tangible benefit is that we 
actually resource the best solutions, which is not what we are 
doing right now.
    Ms. Tlaib. No. Thank you, and I yield. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Thank you very much. 
Let me recognize Mr. Cohen.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohen?
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Recognizing myself, there seems to be a--Mr. 
Westerman, is there anyone on your side of the aisle that 
wishes to be recognized that has not at this point?
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen, are you available at this point?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There is some technical difficulty with Mr. 
Cohen's connection. Let me recognize myself. Otherwise, we will 
be here in limbo for a while.
    I mentioned in the opening remarks--and I have some 
questions that are pertinent to this hearing, but I mentioned 
the remarks that the issue of JEDI and what we are dealing with 
here in terms of integrating justice, equity, diversity, and 
inclusion not only into mainstream environmental institutions, 
but the discussion has been more expansive than that--it is not 
just a moral necessity, it is a very, very practical necessity. 
And as you exclude voices from diverse and impacted communities 
in decision-making processes, all those policies that are made 
around those issues fall short of the goals.
    In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine released a report just last year that underscores how 
advancing JEDI in environmental institutions is necessary to 
ensure that the Federal environmental policies are designed to 
work for all Americans.
    They also said in that report that environmental 
foundations, and I quote, ``need to prioritize addressing both 
the severe racial justice and equity disparities in their 
funding of climate NGOs and the diversity of their board and 
staff advisors.''
    I mentioned that, but let me just talk about two issues 
that came up from the witnesses and also from the questions 
that my colleagues asked, and one has to do with the issue of 
capacity building and power. And both to Ms. Chatterjee and Mr. 
Dosunmu, if you could answer and respond to this question and 
also respond what you saw with what the National Academy said, 
capacity building.
    Let me just take one example, cumulative impact, and the 
frustration that many impacted communities have of a single 
source analysis versus a cumulative analysis that it is 
impacting the whole community, the public health of that 
community, and the general environment of that community with 
capacity in terms of resources, the ability for communities to 
be able to deal with this question much more effectively.
    Your response to that? I use that as one example of where 
capacity building, I think, is critical to impacted communities 
to be able to make their point----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    The Chairman. Ms. Chatterjee?
    Ms. Chatterjee. Yes, thank you. I absolutely agree with the 
findings of the National Academy of Sciences that you are 
raising here--that it actually is more impactful to bring 
communities to the table.
    And in terms of capacity building, my view is that often 
that capacity is best brought through just unrestricted grant 
dollars. I think oftentimes what we see is that foundations 
feel that they know what capacity an organization might need, 
and they sometimes are right, and they sometimes are wrong.
    So, our inclination is to argue for unrestricted grants to 
communities of color-led organizations organizing in 
communities of color, doing that work, so they can decide for 
themselves if what they need most is media training or is what 
they need most a scientific analysis?
    I think that it really depends on the time and the 
community. Our inclination is to encourage unrestricted grants 
for capacity building.
    The Chairman. Yes, and Mr. Dosunmu, let me just kind of 
rephrase another question.
    I said it was practical, and that these are practical 
things that need to be done in order to be effective for 
environmental institutions and NGOs, mainstream ones. But it 
applies as well to the policymakers in government, because 
there is a relationship to that policy development and the NGOs 
outside.
    And I asked a question about the practicality. As this 
country continues to become more diverse, the need for 
inclusivity also applies to the issue that we are talking about 
here today, the environment in general, not only the climate 
issue that we must do something about, but also the long-term 
conservation that also must be part of this nation's policy, 
and how these new constituencies are--the role that they are 
going to play in the future in the protection of our public 
lands, waters, and dealing with climate, why there is a 
practical policy importance to recognizing that inclusion is 
necessary for the long term.
    Mr. Dosunmu. Absolutely, thank you so much, Congressman, 
for the question.
    I think part of it is recognizing that the earlier you 
bring communities in and the more substantively you engage 
those communities, the better off your policymaking is going to 
be.
    So, currently, what community engagement looks like and 
community outreach looks like is that it is almost a box that 
funders check or, in some cases, that elected officials check, 
and it is really not substantive. It is not driven by a desire 
to have deep connectivity with the communities and the 
organizations that are doing the most important work.
    One of the things that I can say from the vast experience 
that I have in this space is that often decisions are imposed 
on our communities. They happen to our communities. They don't 
emanate up from our communities. And we have to shift that 
dynamic if we really want to meaningfully address the crisis 
that is at hand. We have to make sure that the most thoughtful 
and most innovative ideas and policies actually are able to 
influence the public discourse and the ultimate policy 
outcomes.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And let me now go back 
to and recognize Mr. Cohen for 5 minutes.
    Sir.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know that I need 
that time, particularly, but I appreciate your coming back. I 
have had technical problems in getting back to the Committee.
    But at the beginning of the Committee, my friend, the 
Ranking Member, made a lot of comments about inflation, and how 
that has harmed so many poor people with the cost of energy.
    I just realized that inflation--and I am sure my friend 
knows this, as well--is a worldwide problem, and that inflation 
is in Brazil, and it is in Germany, and it is everywhere, in 
Europe, and all around the world. It is not a problem that 
President Biden is not aware of and attacking, but it is not 
something he has done, because it is a worldwide problem. And a 
lot of it relates to the pandemic.
    And President Biden has done so much to try to encourage 
people who are resistant to doing it, including people in our 
Congress on the other side of the aisle, on the Floor to wear 
masks, to be concerned about others, to not spread the virus, 
and to get vaccinated and boosted. And too many people in red 
states, predominantly, have not cooperated. They have not 
gotten vaccinated, they have not worn masks, and they spread 
the virus.
    And it has been shown. Tennessee, my home state, is 
generally first in the country in the number of people 
infected, because we have almost no policies from our governor 
concerning wearing masks. This avoidance of science is hurting 
our country and hurting poor people more than it is wealthier 
people.
    And when you have the problems we have with climate change, 
which is one of the deals we have with fossil fuels, it is poor 
people that don't have the money in summer when it gets so hot 
to go to Colorado, or Wyoming, or one of their little resorts, 
or when it gets cold in the winter and miserable, they can't go 
to Naples, Florida, because they can't afford it, where the 
wealthy can go. So, climate change has a disproportionate 
effect on poor people, and that is why we need to be concerned 
about it.
    I was looking at Plan B yesterday. Plan B was published 
about, I think, 15, 20 years ago, and we are still not getting 
around to Plan B, and we are out-using Mother Earth, and we are 
taking too many resources out of it and putting too many 
pressures on it, and it only has a limited capacity, and we are 
over that capacity, and we are not going to be around when it 
runs out of steam, runs out of ability to absorb and to provide 
water and necessary resources, and to work as it should.
    But it is just a problem, and that is one of the questions 
I was going to ask earlier, Mr. Chair. And I know you are aware 
of them, but I get tired of hearing Republicans talk about 
inflation and about the supply chain, which are worldwide 
problems, much of which has to do with China, and the pandemic, 
and closing down, and not getting goods out to market.
    And ships have been averaging 4 days sitting off of ports 
on the supply chain. It is worse now, but it has always been 
somewhat bad.
    Anyway, that is one thing that I wanted to get off my 
chest, which I guess I have done.
    Delegate Freeland is no longer with us, is he?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cohen. Does anybody that is with us on the panel 
represent particularly Native American Indians?
    Mr. Freeland. I am here, Representative Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. OK, thank you, Delegate. I just wanted to get 
your perspective on how Deb Haaland, our former colleague and 
my friend, is doing as the Secretary of the Interior concerning 
Native American Indian issues.
    Mr. Freeland. That is a very good question. That has yet to 
be determined, Congressman. We haven't had an opportunity to 
speak with her. I say that, that is why. We don't know what she 
is or what her intentions are. We don't know what her thoughts 
are. We don't know. So, that is yet to be determined, 
Congressman, thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. Have you made an attempt to talk with her?
    Mr. Freeland. Yes, we did, Congressman. We were actually 
out there last week, and we did request to meet with her 
directly related to the issue of Chaco Canyon, but we never got 
a response.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, I appreciate that.
    I am very concerned about the horses and the burros out in 
the West. And, of course, they get in a fight with the cattle 
farmers, and who has the right to the land, and I am concerned 
that we ought to be doing more with the scientific efforts to 
reduce their population, and by herding them up, and then 
having them end up in pens, and herding them in the roundups 
without helicopters, and all that. And I am just concerned----
    Voice. It confirms that----
    Mr. Cohen. Excuse me.
    Voice [continuing]. They have been trying.
    Mr. Cohen. I didn't hear whatever somebody was saying. 
Maybe somebody was not muted.
    But the bottom line is--and it may be kind of simplistic--
but I was thinking Native American Indians--horses were their 
friends and the cattle farmers weren't, and I don't know if 
things have changed that much. And I wish that we had better 
results from the Department of the Interior on taking care of 
our four-legged friends and their opportunities to graze and 
not be treated inhumanely.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me just thank the 
witnesses for their very valuable testimony, the Members for 
their questions, and for the questions that some of those 
questions brought up, and those are important, as well.
    The members of the Committee may have additional questions 
for the witnesses, and we will ask them to respond to those in 
writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee will 
submit witness questions within 3 business days following that 
hearing, and the record will be open for 10 business days for 
the responses.
    Before closing and thanking everybody once again, let me 
say that I think this has been a very good hearing. The effort 
to rewrite history or erase it is--well, some people, some 
attempt is being done at that. The fact is that it can't 
happen. It is about correcting past practices and redirecting 
history so we don't repeat those mistakes again.
    And I think that the discussion today goes to that issue, 
and it is about capacity, it is about inclusion, but it is also 
about beginning to develop the kinds of policies and integrate 
them fully, and the legislative initiatives that are going to 
give marginalized communities, diverse communities, those that 
are most impacted, least attended to, not just the opportunity, 
but the empowerment to be able to have some significant say 
over the quality of their particular lives and their 
communities' lives. And I think it is important.
    The nexus for Chaco was always, Mr. Freeland, the 
protection in perpetuity of the Chaco landscape, its 
facilities, its cultural, religious, and spiritual 
significance. And the buffer and withdrawal, whether 5, 10, 
discussion going on, was with that intent, and that intent was 
driven by a variety of advocacy on the part of many tribes 
across this country in New Mexico, and the then-administration 
and Navajo Nation. So, those discussions are ongoing, but the 
nexus that I believe we all agree with is, in perpetuity, the 
conservation and protection of that landscape.
    The other issue is the one that came up about the question 
of using slave labor in order to acquire our precious or rare 
minerals for import into this country. Nobody supports that 
concept.
    And I think that we are going to be consistent. I would 
extend to my colleagues the invitation to join with some of us 
in the prohibition of this Federal Government--of our doing 
business with multi-national and conglomerates and corporations 
that are doing business on public land and water, but have a 
track record of environmental labor abuse, and now a cultural 
resource abuse, and the exploitation and abuse of women, that 
we not do business with them, i.e. Rio Tinto mining company.
    So, if we are going to be consistent on one end and 
prohibit the import, we should also prohibit them having access 
to our public lands to be able to do business, not pay any 
royalties, and continue the practices outside our country. If 
we are going to be consistent, let's apply the rule to all.
    But we are going to go forward with this.
    I want to thank the staff for this meeting.
    With no further business for the Committee, we are 
adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
              Written Testimony of Mark Mitchell, Chairman
                    All Pueblo Council of Governors
                 Testimony Submitted February 22, 2022

    Greetings House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva and 
committee members, my name is Mark Mitchell, former Governor of the 
Pueblo of Tesuque and Chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors 
(APCG). The APCG represents the 20 Pueblo Nations of New Mexico and 
Texas. Each Pueblo exercises its own Sovereign authority to govern its 
affairs.

    The mission of the All Pueblo Council of Governors is: ``To 
advocate, foster, protect and encourage the social, cultural, and 
traditional well-being of our Pueblo Nations. Through our inherent and 
sovereign rights, we will promote language, health, economic and 
educational advancement of all Pueblo people.''

    The first recorded convening of this council dates back to 1598. At 
that time, many more Pueblos were thriving throughout the American 
Southwest but through generations of colonialism from Spain, Mexico, 
and the United States, we only have 20-member Pueblos today.

    Through generations of colonialism and direct policy decisions to 
eradicate our Pueblos and cultural survival, we retain and maintain the 
languages of Keres, Tewa, Tiwa, Towa, and Zuni. The Pueblos' footprint 
across the American Southwest is evident in the world renown structures 
of Chaco Culture National Historical Park (``CCNHP'') Bears Ears 
National Monument, Mesa Verde National Park, Aztec Ancestral Ruins, 
Hovenweep, and Bandelier National Monument, and many others.

    I want to thank you, Chairman Grijalva and the entire House Natural 
Resources Committee, for holding this oversight hearing titled, 
``Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Environmental 
Policymaking, Role of Environmental Organizations and Grantmaking 
Foundations.'' As you know, our member Pueblos do not currently enjoy 
permanent occupancy of many of our sacred landscapes described above; 
however, each Pueblo retains our ongoing cultural practices and 
commitment to these sites through song, story, pilgrimage, and customs. 
We continuously reaffirm our commitment to steward sacred landscapes 
beyond our existing landholdings in our daily prayers and traditions.

    Our cultural resources are quintessential to our survival, and they 
are precious, nonrenewable, and irreplaceable. Each and every one of 
our cultural resources, sacred sites, and historic properties is 
intricately connected and plays a vital role in the spiritual and 
ecological web of relationships that comprise a traditional cultural 
landscape.

    As Chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors, I would like to 
share the critical urgency to protect two landscapes facing direct 
threats in New Mexico: 1) the Greater Chaco Region; and 2) the Caja Del 
Rio Landscape.
Preservation of the Greater Chaco Region

    As members of the House Natural Resources Committee know, the 
protection and preservation of the Greater Chaco Region from unfettered 
oil and gas mineral development has been a priority for the All Pueblo 
Council of Governors for many years. In fact, APCG has adopted numerous 
resolutions calling on the federal government, including the Department 
of the Interior and Congress, to remediate the impacts of oil and gas 
mineral development that has encroached upon and continues to threaten 
the CCNHP and its interrelated outlier cultural resources. These 
resources are situated within the larger sacred landscape known as the 
Greater Chaco Region.

    The APCG has consistently advocated a two-part approach for the 
protection of the Greater Chaco Region by seeking: 1) withdrawal of 
federal lands and minerals from future mineral development surrounding 
the CCNHP in a critical 10-mile withdrawal area; and 2) tribally led 
cultural resource studies and tribal consultation that inform federal 
undertakings in the Greater Chaco Region, to ensure the protection of 
cultural resources.

    The APCG developed the critical 10-mile withdraw protection 
position in close partnership with the President and Vice-President's 
office of the Navajo Nation. Beginning in 2015, Chapters within the 
Navajo Nation expressed their concerns about the negative impacts of 
oil and gas development in the area, including on culturally and 
historically sacred areas, individuals' health, and the environment, 
citing the Navajo Nation's critical cultural and historical ties to the 
area and the harms caused to the Navajo people living in the area.

    After numerous meetings between the APCG leadership and the 
President and Vice President of the Navajo Nation, the Chaco Cultural 
Heritage Area Protection Act (``Act'') was introduced by Senator Tom 
Udall that would withdraw federal lands and minerals within a critical 
10-mile withdraw surrounding the CCNHP from future mineral development. 
As carefully constructed by APCG and Navajo Nation, the Act included 
provisions protecting the Navajo Nation's and its allottees' to rights 
to development on their land, even within the withdrawal area.

    Over the last few years, the Congress has recognized the need to 
protect the cultural resources within the critical 10-mile withdrawal 
area and has enacted spending legislation to prevent the Department of 
the Interior from making available any federal lands and minerals 
available for leasing or development.

    Despite the historic and united effort from the Pueblos, Navajo 
Nation, and the State of New Mexico to protect the Greater Chaco 
Region, some within the Navajo Nation no longer support the 10-mile 
withdrawal area. APCG has made multiple attempts to reach the Office of 
the President and the Speaker of the 24th Navajo Nation Council to 
renew our historic partnership to protect the cultural resources while 
carefully balancing the interests of their Nation's and allottees' 
mineral development rights. To date, no responses have been provided.

    As announced during the White House Tribal Nations Summit, the 
Department of the Interior (``Department'') has initiated the 
consideration of administratively withdrawing federal lands and 
minerals within the critical 10-mile withdrawal area surrounding the 
CCNHP from oil and gas development, using existing statutory authority 
under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act for a maximum period 
of 20 years.

    The Department's administrative withdrawal effort advances the 
APCG's two-part position and carefully aligns with the protection 
efforts the Pueblos and the Navajo Nation developed to ensure maximum 
protections for cultural resources are maintained while allowing for 
development on Navajo and allottee land. The Department will continue 
its robust public commenting opportunities, tribal consultation 
requirements, and submission of a report on all considerations to the 
Congress prior to the Secretary's completion of the administrative 
withdrawal.

    The Pueblos through APCG maintain that we continue to look to renew 
our partnership with all stakeholders to protect the Greater Chaco 
Region and its significant cultural resources.
Preservation and Protection of the Caja Del Rio Landscape

    Since time immemorial, our people have occupied and ecologically 
stewarded extensive areas of New Mexico including the 107,068-acre 
plateau now known as the Caja Del Rio, located near Santa Fe, New 
Mexico. Our ancestors' migration and our continuous occupation and 
religious use of the Caja Del Rio have resulted in a dense 
concentration of Pueblo cultural resources and a vast, multi-layered 
living cultural landscape consisting of separate overlapping cultural 
landscapes for individual Pueblos and Tribes.

    This landscape holds thousands of sacred sites, housing structures, 
ceremonial kivas, petroglyphs, ancient irrigation systems, and other 
sites potentially eligible for designation as a Traditional Cultural 
Property in the National Register of Historic Places. APCG and member 
Pueblos also advocate for the protection of important cultural 
resources in this area including those that are not archaeological in 
nature like shrines, springs, plant and mineral gathering places, 
viewsheds, sound sheds, and other important natural features and sacred 
sites.

    As continually demonstrated by Pueblos and reaffirmed by 
archaeological and ethnographic record, many Pueblos maintain a 
historic, ongoing, and significant cultural connection to the Caja Del 
Rio cultural landscape, including through story, song, prayer, hunting, 
medicine gathering and pilgrimage. Protection of this area's natural 
resources, traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites is 
necessary to our member Pueblos' cultural preservation now and into the 
future and has formally been established as a priority in APCG's legacy 
protection efforts. Maintenance and protection of the ecological and 
spiritual relationships between our member Pueblos and the resources 
this cultural landscape holds are central to the longevity, maintenance 
and revitalization of our cultural knowledge, histories, practices, and 
identity as Pueblo people. These resources contribute to the present 
and future well-being of our communities, to New Mexico and to the 
entire world. APCG also recognizes the importance of cultural resources 
in this region as delineating historic land grant boundaries, some of 
which may be used to resolve current jurisdictional concerns and 
disputes.

    Despite the Caja Del Rio's recognition as a sacred landscape for 
the Pueblos and its richness in cultural resources, it continues to 
suffer mismanagement resulting in ongoing, cumulative adverse impacts 
including the desecration of sacred sites, illegal dumping, poaching, 
unregulated shooting, and off-road misuse.

    On January 17th or 18th, at least 10 petroglyphs were defaced with 
graffiti of swastikas and human anatomy. This marks the third known 
incident at the petroglyph site in the last year. As you can imagine, 
many of our secular and traditional Pueblo leadership, community 
members, and youth continue to heartfully express outrage, sadness, and 
grief for the disturbance and desecration of the beloved cultural 
resources left by our ancestors. Pueblo leadership attests the 
desecration to years of mismanagement of the Caja Del Rio, where the 
jurisdictional makeup includes management by United States Forest 
Service (``USFS''), Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Land 
Office, and private ownership.

    In addition to legacy mismanagement of the region causing 
persistent cultural desecration, theft of cultural artifacts, illegal 
dumping and poaching, this already vulnerable cultural landscape is 
further endangered by the Department of Energy's (``DOE'') proposed 
Electrical Power Capacity Upgrade project. In absence of adequate 
tribal consultation by DOE and USFS, APCG via resolution and letter has 
formally called upon the project's joint lead agencies, to fully assess 
environmental and cultural resource impacts of the proposed project by 
initiating a Section 106 Review Process and to carry out a full 
Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with legal obligations 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''), the National 
Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 Review Process, and in 
consideration of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of 
Indigenous People's principle on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

    As Pueblo people, we take desecrations to our sacred places as 
reminders that we must continually and strategically act through all 
available mechanisms to achieve justice so that we can preserve the 
sacred cultural resources that have sustained each Pueblo since time 
immemorial. At the forefront of our efforts with Congress and the 
Administration should precede the recognition and maintenance of the 
United States' solemn federal trust responsibility to Tribes, and 
commitment to advance the government-to-government relationship through 
meaningful and effective communication, collaboration, and tribal 
decision-making authority on the preservation of tribal cultural 
resources.

    In conclusion, we look forward to continuing our relationship with 
the federal government, including the Congress, to address urgent 
issues impacting the Pueblos cultural resources, including those beyond 
each member's existing reservation boundaries.

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
             Written Testimony of Governor Randall Vicente
                            Pueblo of Acoma
                 Testimony Submitted February 22, 2022

    On behalf of the Pueblo of Acoma, please accept this written 
testimony for the House Committee on Natural Resources' (Committee) 
oversight hearing titled ``Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in 
Environmental Policymaking: The Role of Environmental Organizations and 
Grantmaking Foundations.'' Our testimony addresses issues raised 
regarding protection of the sacred landscape of the Greater Chaco 
Region.
I. Sacred Landscape of Greater Chaco Region Under Threat

    The Greater Chaco Region is a sacred landscape important to the 
cultural identity of Pueblos and other Tribal Nations. It is a truly 
special place unlike any other. Before the Pueblos transitioned to our 
existing landholdings, spreading out over the landscape like spokes of 
a wheel, we occupied Chaco Canyon. Our occupancy and, thereafter, our 
ongoing interactions with Chaco Canyon resulted in a dense 
concentration of cultural resources--including vast ancestral Puebloan 
structures, shrines, sacred sites, and natural formations with 
culturally relevant modifications and understandings--and an 
interconnected sacred landscape important to the maintenance of our 
governance systems, languages, cultures, and traditions. This landscape 
is known as the Greater Chaco Region, and it spreads throughout the San 
Juan Basin.

    Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Region play an integral role in 
Acoma's living history, culture, and identity. Our discussion of Chaco 
cannot be separated from our discussion of our present-day home and 
community of Haaku, Acoma. As Acoma people, Chaco Canyon and the 
Greater Chaco Region are deeply rooted in our collective memory, and 
the experiences of our ancestors. It is an extension of our ancestral 
homeland, where our ancestors lived for generations to form the 
foundations of our cultural practices, traditions, and beliefs that 
help define our identity as Acoma people today. Chaco Canyon, and its 
vast landscape, are not abandoned--but instead they contain the 
cultural resources that tie Acoma to Chaco, and from Chaco to the place 
of our emergence. The Greater Chaco Region is therefore a living 
landscape, depended on by living indigenous communities, like Acoma. 
Within the Greater Chaco Region are archaeological and significant 
cultural resources, left by our creator, utilized by our ancestors, and 
accessible to us for the continuance of our cultural practices.

    Over many decades, mineral development has encroached on the 
Greater Chaco Region, creeping closer and closer to its center point 
within the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. By many estimates, 
over 90% of available federal land in the San Juan Basin has already 
been leased for oil and gas development. As a result, tens of thousands 
of oil and gas wells have been developed in the Greater Chaco Region. 
These development decisions have been made without sufficient tribal 
consultation and without sufficient identification and assessment of 
impacts on irreplaceable tribal cultural resources and the sacred 
landscape.

    Compounding these issues is a serious lack of cultural resource 
data identifying cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region 
important to the Pueblos and other Tribal Nations.\1\ While 
archaeologists are adept at recognizing many types of archaeological 
resources (potsherds, room blocks, pit houses, etc.), many of the 
cultural resources important to the Pueblo are outside the domain of 
archaeology. For Acoma, all ancestral pueblo archaeological resources 
are cultural resources, but not all cultural resources are 
archaeological in nature, and therein lies a major issue. When we are 
confronted with unchecked oil and gas development in a region we know 
to be rich in cultural resources, we are forced to rely upon federal 
agencies, as our trustee, to safeguard these resources. However, these 
agencies are often unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to 
engage with tribal experts to identify and consider impacts on 
significant cultural resources--where this necessary first step 
includes providing us with the opportunity to survey nominated lease 
parcels and potential drilling sites before federal action is taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Uncited Preliminary Brief (Deferred Appendix Appeal) of All 
Pueblo Council of Governors and National Trust for Historic 
Preservation as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Dine Citizens 
Against Ruining Our Environment v. Zinke, Civ. No. 18-2089 (10th Cir. 
2018) (All Pueblo Council of Governors amicus brief describing 
violations of National Historic Preservation Act and implementing 
regulations in failure to consult with Pueblo tribal governments during 
applications for permits to drill in order to gather required 
information about potentially affected historic properties, including 
traditional cultural properties).

    As Acoma, we have a culturally-embedded and inherent responsibility 
to protect our cultural resources and sacred landscapes. It is for this 
reason that Acoma has prioritized protecting the sacred landscape of 
the Greater Chaco Region.
II. Collaborative Efforts to Protect Sacred Landscape

    The Pueblos have always sought to be pragmatic when it comes to the 
protections we seek for the Greater Chaco Region. For this reason, we 
have pursued a 2-part approach meant to balance protecting the sacred 
landscape and recognizing that development is already ongoing, 
including on sovereign tribal and allotment land. The first part of our 
2-part approach is seeking withdrawal of federal land from new mineral 
development in the especially critical 10-mile withdrawal area 
surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park and including 
its outliers.\2\ The second part is seeking sufficient tribally-led 
cultural resource studies and tribal consultation before all other 
development, including oil and gas lease sales, in the broader Greater 
Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-11 
(designating certain outlying sites as ``Chaco Culture Archaeological 
Protection Sites''); Act of Dec. 19, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-550, Title V 
(creating Park) (codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 410ii-410ii-7).

    This nuanced approach reflects the protections the Navajo Nation, 
the Pueblos, and other stakeholders \3\ came together to agree upon. 
Navajo Nation and Pueblo coordination on protection of the Greater 
Chaco Region dates back years. Navajo people local to the Chaco area 
raised to their leadership concerns about the effects of oil and gas 
development on their health, the environment, and the sacred 
landscape.\4\ Navajo leadership then took up the issue.\5\ Soon after, 
Navajo and the Pueblos came together government-to-government to 
strategize, and the joint withdrawal efforts were born from those 
discussions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ As part of this collaborative effort, the State of New Mexico 
undertook to withdraw New Mexico state trust lands within the 
withdrawal area. Moratorium on New Oil and Gas and Mineral Leasing in 
Greater Chaco Area, N.M. Comm'r of Pub. Lands Exec. Order No. 2019-002 
(Apr. 27, 2019).
    \4\ The Counselor Chapter, Ojo Encino Chapter, Dilkon Chapter, 
Torreon/Star Lake Chapter, and Dine Medicine Men's Association, Inc. 
passed resolutions in 2015; the Tri-Chapters of the Eastern Agency 
wrote to the Resources and Development Committee in 2016; and the 
Counselor Chapter in 2016 initiated the Hozhoogo na'ada assessment 
model and process. Harvard thereafter released data on the effects of 
oil and gas development on local Navajo residents' health during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, and representatives from the Counselor Chapter 
discussed ongoing concerns. See Kendra Chamberlain, For Greater Chaco 
Communities, Air Pollution Compounds COVID-19 Threat, NM Pol. Rep. 
(Apr. 15, 2020), https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/04/15/for-greater-
chaco-communities-air-pollution-compounds-covid-19-threat/. These same 
Navajo people and organizations continue to be vocal in support of 
protecting Chaco, and some Navajo Council Delegates are included in 
this group.
    \5\ Once the issue was brought to Navajo leadership, Navajo 
leadership thereafter informed the Bureau of Land Management of the 
concerns. Letter from Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation, and 
Jonathan Nez, Vice President, Navajo Nation, to Bureau of Land Mgmt., 
Dep't of Interior (Feb. 6, 2017) (``Re Concerns Regarding Chaco Canyon 
Cultural Historic Park'').
    \6\ In a historic collaborative effort, the Navajo Nation and the 
Pueblos met in February 2017 government-to-government and mutually 
committed to working together. Press Release, Navajo Nation, OPVP 
Protect Chaco Canyon Region Through Collaboration with All Pueblo 
Council of Governors (Feb. 24, 2017), https://www.navajo-nsn.gov/
news%20releases/opvp/2017/feb/opvp% 
20protect%20chaco%20canyon%20region%20through%20collaboration%20with%20a
ll%20pueblo %20council%20of%20governors.pdf.

    The Pueblos and the Navajo Nation agreed to advocate for withdrawal 
of federal land from future mineral leasing and development within the 
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area, and we further agreed to 
preserve the rights of Tribal Nations and allottees to develop on their 
land even within this withdrawal area.\7\ The Pueblos have never 
strayed beyond these agreed-upon protections. The Pueblos do not and 
have never advocated for withdrawing other Tribal Nations' land or 
allotment land from development, and we have supported all efforts to 
make clear that a withdrawal would not prevent tribal or allottee 
landowners from developing on their land. Further, we have limited our 
request to withdraw federal land to only a small, critical area of the 
Greater Chaco Region. As the entire area is a sacred landscape, we view 
withdrawal of the 10-mile withdrawal area as a minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The Navajo Nation's and the Pueblos' staff worked with Senator 
Udall's Office to create federal legislation to permanently protect the 
withdrawal area--and this effort became the Chaco Cultural Heritage 
Area Protection Act. In April 2018, the Navajo Nation and Pueblos again 
met government-to-government to formally review and approve the 
language of the legislation. The outcome was a critical compromise to 
support the withdrawal of federal land from future development but to 
preserve the rights of the Navajo Nation and Navajo allottees to 
develop on their own land. The Navajo Nation and the Pueblos together 
supported the introduction of the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area 
Protection Act of 2018, S. 2907; its reintroduction as the Chaco 
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, S. 1079 and H.R. 2181, 
with additional protections for the Navajo Nation's and Navajo 
allottees' development rights; and the legislation's movement through 
Congress toward enactment, including by giving congressional testimony, 
see, e.g., Written Testimony of Navajo Nation, Vice President Myron 
Lizer, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage 
Area Protection Act of 2019, Before the H. Comm. on Natural Resources 
Subcomm. on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands (June 5, 2019), 
available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Lizer,%20Myron%20-%20Written%20Testimony.pdf; Written Testimony of 
Myron Lizer, Vice President, Navajo Nation, Oil and Gas Development: 
Impacts on Air Pollution and Sacred Sites: Field Hearing Before the H. 
Comm. on Nat. Res. (Apr. 15, 2019), https://www.Congress.gov/116/
meeting/house/109319/witnesses/HHRG-116-II06-Wstate-LizerM-
20190415.pdf; Written Testimony of Rickie Nez, Delegate and Chair of 
Navajo Nation Council Res. & Dev. Comm., Oil and Gas Development: 
Impacts on Air Pollution and Sacred Sites: Field Hearing Before the H. 
Comm. on Nat. Res. (Apr. 15, 2019), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
imo/media/doc/2.4%20Testimony%20-%20Nez%20-%2004.15.19.pdf (noting 
cultural importance of Chaco and need to protect air quality for 
cultural and health purposes); see also Felicia Fonseca, Tribes Urge 
U.S. to Ban Drilling Around Sacred New Mexico Site, Navajo-Hopi 
Observer (Mar. 26, 2019, 10:29 AM), https://www.nhonews.com/news/2019/
mar/26/tribes-urge-us-ban-drilling-around-sacred-new-mexi/.

    Additionally, the withdrawal is but one aspect of the Pueblos' 
efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region. Among other measures, the 
Pueblos advocated to the Department of the Interior (Department) and 
then to Congress for federal funding to complete a tribally-led 
cultural resource study of the Greater Chaco Region. We were able to 
secure sufficient funding for both the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos, 
in conjunction with the Hopi Tribe, to complete such studies, and the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
studies are now underway.

    In recent years, some within the Navajo Nation have broken with the 
previously established Navajo position in favor of the Chaco 
withdrawal. The Pueblos have sought a government-to-government meeting 
with the Navajo Nation to address these issues, but our requests have 
not been answered.\8\ However, we were able to submit testimony to the 
Navajo Council describing the long-standing partnership between the 
Navajo Nation and the Pueblos with regard to Chaco protections and how 
the withdrawal is designed to protect tribal and allottee development 
rights.\9\ We would warmly welcome a meeting with the Navajo Nation to 
discuss our collaborative efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See, e.g., Letter from Mark Mitchell, Chairman, All Pueblo 
Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation (Feb. 
10, 2022) (requesting meeting and access to Navajo land for tribally 
led cultural resource study); Letter from Wilfred Herrera Jr., 
Chairman, All Pueblo Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, 
Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Apr. 15, 2021) 
(requesting meeting to discuss continued partnership to protect Chaco); 
Letter from J. Michael Chavarria, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of 
Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon, 
Speaker, Navajo Nation (Jan. 30, 2020) (same).
    \9\ Letter from E. Paul Torres, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of 
Governors, to Exec. Dir., Off. of Legis. Servs., Navajo Nation, and 
Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Dec. 11, 2019) (providing testimony 
on Navajo Legislation No. 0366-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Effects of Administrative Withdrawal on Tribal and Allotment Land

    As a consequence of advocacy by the Pueblos and others, and in line 
with the protections agreed upon with the Navajo Nation, the Department 
has announced that it is considering withdrawing for a 20-year term 
351,479.97 acres of public land and interests located in an 
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area surrounding the Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park and including its outliers.\10\ Such public 
land would be withdrawn from location and entry under the United States 
mining laws and from leasing under the mineral leasing laws but not 
from disposal under the mineral materials laws, and the withdrawal 
would be subject to valid existing rights. According to the 
Department's notice, the purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the 
landscape rich in tribal cultural legacy from the impacts of oil and 
gas development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan 
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022).

    The administrative withdrawal contemplated by the Department goes 
no further than the protections agreed upon between the Pueblos and the 
Navajo Nation. It would be limited to the 10-mile withdrawal area and 
would withdraw only public land; it would not apply to tribal or 
allotment land.\11\ Further, even on federal land otherwise withdrawn, 
ongoing development would be permitted to continue, as withdrawal is 
subject to valid existing rights.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1702(j), 1714 (only providing authority for withdrawal of 
federal land); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land 
Management Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), 
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-
steps-protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential 
withdrawal . . . would not apply to minerals owned by private, state, 
or Tribal entities.'').
    \12\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1701 note (stating withdrawal is subject to valid existing 
rights); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management 
Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://
www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-
protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential 
withdrawal would not affect existing valid leases . . . .'').

    Additionally, completion of the Department's administrative 
withdrawal would only make more permanent the current status quo. 
Dating back to at least the Obama administration, an informal pause was 
put in place to prevent new oil and gas leasing and development on 
federal land in the withdrawal area. After a brief but worrisome period 
of reversal that required significant advocacy by the Pueblos and 
others, the Trump Administration also put in place a similar pause.\13\ 
And, since December 2019, Congress through appropriations legislation 
has maintained a moratorium preventing new oil and gas leasing and 
development on federal land in the withdrawal area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Press Release, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Heinrich Secures 
Commitments from Interior Secretary to Protect Chaco Canyon (May 28, 
2019), https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-secures-
commitments-from-interior-secretary-to-protect-chaco-canyon.
    \14\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260 
Sec. 430 (2020) (containing following language for Fiscal Year 2021: 
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to accept a 
nomination for oil and gas leasing under 43 CFR 3120.3 et seq, or to 
offer for oil and gas leasing, any federal lands within the withdrawal 
area identified on the map of the Chaco Culture National Historical 
Park prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and dated April 2, 2019, 
prior to the completion of the cultural resources investigation 
identified in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the 
matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).''); Further 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub L. No. 116-94 Sec. 442 
(2019) (containing identical language for Fiscal Year 2020).

    Last, examining the landownership map of the withdrawal area,\15\ 
it is clear that almost all allotments abut non-federal land that would 
not be withdrawn. Further, when allotments do touch federal land, often 
there is already ongoing development on that federal land that would 
not be prevented by the withdrawal.\16\ Thus, there will be very few 
allotments isolated by surrounding withdrawn federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
    \16\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal, Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Additional Tribal Consultation and Commenting Opportunities 
        Preceding Completion of Administrative Withdrawal

    Inherent in the Department's administrative withdrawal process will 
be opportunities for further consideration of the voices of the 
Pueblos, Navajo Nation, allottees, and others.

    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) administrative 
withdrawal process under which the Department is considering the Chaco 
administrative withdrawal involves significant public comment and 
consideration.\17\ For withdrawals the size contemplated by the 
Department for Chaco, the Department must provide public comment 
opportunities and conduct environmental review, and it must provide a 
detailed report to Congress regarding analysis of the impacts of 
withdrawal.\18\ Indeed, when President Biden in November 2021 announced 
that the Department would begin the administrative withdrawal process, 
the Department said it would be conducting an environmental analysis, 
seeking public comment, and conducting tribal consultation on the 
proposed administrative withdrawal.\19\ Thereafter, on January 6, 2022, 
the Bureau of Land Management published notice of the proposed 
withdrawal in the Federal Register, formally beginning the withdrawal 
process and opening a 90-day comment period.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1714(c)(1).
    \18\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1714(c); 43 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 2310.1-2310.5.
    \19\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Interior, Secretary Haaland 
Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant 
Chaco Canyon Landscape (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-
culturally-significant-chaco.
    \20\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan 
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022); see also Press Release, 
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management Takes Next Steps to 
Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.blm.gov/press-release/
bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-protect-chaco-canyon; see also 
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Chaco Culture National Historical Park Area 
Withdrawal (Jan. 25, 2022), https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2016892/510.

    Additionally, it is important to note that the withdrawal 
contemplated by the Department has been the subject of multiple 
congressional hearings, including a field hearing,\21\ through 
consideration of the Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.\22\ We also 
understand that members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation and 
officials within the Department of the Interior have met with the 
Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and others on the withdrawal and other 
Chaco protection efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Press Release, H. Comm. on Nat. Res., Chair Grijalva Announces 
April 15 Field Hearing in New Mexico on Air Quality, Sacred Sites 
Impacts of Oil and Gas Development (Apr. 5, 2019), https://
naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-releases/chair-grijalva-
announces-april-15-field-hearing-in-new-mexico-on-air-quality-sacred-
sites-impacts-of-oil-and-gas-development_gov-lujan-grisham-will-
testify.
    \22\ See note 7, supra.

    In closing, we thank this Committee for its attention to 
appropriate protective measures for the Greater Chaco Region. It is a 
deeply sacred and irreplaceable landscape to which our identity is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tied.

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
           Written Testimony of Governor J. Michael Chavarria
                           Santa Clara Pueblo
                 Testimony Submitted February 22, 2022

    On behalf of the Santa Clara Pueblo, please accept this written 
testimony for the House Committee on Natural Resources' (Committee) 
oversight hearing titled ``Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in 
Environmental Policymaking: The Role of Environmental Organizations and 
Grantmaking Foundations.'' Our testimony addresses issues raised 
regarding protection of the sacred landscape of the Greater Chaco 
Region.
I. Sacred Landscape of Greater Chaco Region Under Threat

    The Greater Chaco Region is a sacred landscape important to the 
cultural identity of Pueblos and other Tribal Nations, including the 
Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. It is a truly special place unlike any 
other. Before the Pueblos transitioned to our existing landholdings, 
spreading out over the landscape like spokes of a wheel, we occupied 
Chaco Canyon. Our occupancy and, thereafter, our ongoing interactions 
with Chaco Canyon resulted in a dense concentration of cultural 
resources--including vast ancestral Puebloan structures, shrines, 
sacred sites, and natural formations with culturally relevant 
modifications and understandings--and an interconnected sacred 
landscape important to the maintenance of our governance systems, 
languages, cultures, and traditions. We call this place the Greater 
Chaco Region, and it spreads throughout the San Juan Basin.

    The protection of the Greater Chaco Region is important to the 
Pueblo of Santa Clara due to the current influence and profound history 
it has reflected on the traditions and customs of Santa Clara Pueblo 
and various Tribal Nations within Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Chaco 
Canyon is still considered a living resource and community that the 
Pueblo of Santa Clara currently uses as a viable teaching to elders and 
youth of the Pueblo. Santa Clara Pueblo and various Tribal Nations can 
trace over 70 villages expanding over 25,000 square miles within the 
San Juan Basin, all holding significance and connection to the Greater 
Chaco Region's sacred landscape.

    Chaco Canyon has direct traditional connections to the Pueblo of 
Santa Clara, and many ethnographic studies showcase similarities to the 
Tewa People and specifically to the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Through our 
oral history within the Pueblo from elders and traditional leaders, it 
has been stated that our presence within the Chacoan landscape has been 
a relative influence to our dynamic customs and traditions within the 
Pueblo today. From current and past field visits to the area and 
outlying ancestral sites observed by elders of the community, these 
findings have been confirmed. Our ancestral village of Puye Cliff 
Dwellings, and other villages within the Pajarito Plateau, also 
showcase similarities in pottery, masonry, petroglyphs, and 
astronomical relics similar to the Chacoan era. Through traditional 
song, prayer, and dances, these villages and locations to the Northwest 
and primarily in the Greater Chaco Region are heavily referenced, which 
showcases our general and spiritual connection to the area.

    The Greater Chaco Region must be protected from outside entities 
that profit from oil and gas leases. We are currently witnessing 
impacts and desecration to ancestral sites, as many sites have been 
damaged by development and otherwise left with trash and broken glass 
and driven upon by vehicles. For example, our staff during a field 
research survey at the Dalton Pass gazed upon in disbelief a kiva pit 
with a barbeque grill in the middle, along with tire tread marks going 
over the site as if no respect to the historical and cultural 
significance was shown. If this type of treatment and lack of respect 
and care for these cultural resources continues, then the need and 
concern for protection is of the upmost importance to the Pueblo of 
Santa Clara. Furthermore, additional development in this sacred 
landscape will only worsen climate change issues and eradicate 
environmental awareness movements that cannot be reversed, which will 
also open the door for further future exploration.

    Over many decades, mineral development has encroached on the 
Greater Chaco Region, creeping closer and closer to its center point 
within the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. By many estimates, 
over 90% of available federal land in the San Juan Basin has already 
been leased for oil and gas development. As a result, tens of thousands 
of oil and gas wells have been developed in the Greater Chaco Region. 
These development decisions have been made without sufficient tribal 
consultation and without sufficient identification and assessment of 
impacts on irreplaceable tribal cultural resources and the sacred 
landscape. In fact, there is a serious lack of cultural resource data 
identifying cultural resources in the Greater Chaco Region important to 
the Pueblos and other Tribal Nations.

    As direct descendants of Chaco Canyon, it is important to 
distinguish our sovereignty from the fossil fuel industry and private 
stakeholders, and we must exercise our sovereignty to ensure that our 
history and ancestral landscapes will not be impacted or destroyed. It 
is personally important to the Santa Clara Pueblo to fulfill our duties 
in protecting and restoring our ancestral sites.
II. Collaborative Efforts to Protect Sacred Landscape

    The Pueblos have always sought to be pragmatic when it comes to the 
protections we seek for the Greater Chaco Region. For this reason, we 
have pursued a 2-part approach meant to balance protecting the sacred 
landscape and recognizing that development is already ongoing, 
including on sovereign tribal and allotment land. The first part of our 
2-part approach is seeking withdrawal of federal land from new mineral 
development in the especially critical 10-mile withdrawal area 
surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park and including 
its outliers.\1\ The second part is seeking sufficient tribally-led 
cultural resource studies and tribal consultation before all other 
development, including oil and gas lease sales, in the broader Greater 
Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-11 
(designating certain outlying sites as ``Chaco Culture Archaeological 
Protection Sites''); Act of Dec. 19, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-550, Title V 
(creating Park) (codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 410ii-410ii-7).

    This nuanced approach reflects the protections the Navajo Nation, 
the Pueblos, and other stakeholders \2\ came together to agree upon. 
Navajo Nation and Pueblo coordination on protection of the Greater 
Chaco Region dates back years. Navajo people local to the Chaco area 
raised to their leadership concerns about the effects of oil and gas 
development on their health, the environment, and the sacred 
landscape.\3\ Navajo leadership then took up the issue.\4\ Soon after, 
Navajo and the Pueblos came together government-to-government to 
strategize, and the joint withdrawal efforts were born from those 
discussions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ As part of this collaborative effort, the State of New Mexico 
undertook to withdraw New Mexico state trust lands within the 
withdrawal area. Moratorium on New Oil and Gas and Mineral Leasing in 
Greater Chaco Area, N.M. Comm'r of Pub. Lands Exec. Order No. 2019-002 
(Apr. 27, 2019).
    \3\ The Counselor Chapter, Ojo Encino Chapter, Dilkon Chapter, 
Torreon/Star Lake Chapter, and Dine Medicine Men's Association, Inc. 
passed resolutions in 2015; the Tri-Chapters of the Eastern Agency 
wrote to the Resources and Development Committee in 2016; and the 
Counselor Chapter in 2016 initiated the Hozhoogo na'ada assessment 
model and process. Harvard thereafter released data on the effects of 
oil and gas development on local Navajo residents' health during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, and representatives from the Counselor Chapter 
discussed ongoing concerns. See Kendra Chamberlain, For Greater Chaco 
Communities, Air Pollution Compounds COVID-19 Threat, NM Pol. Rep. 
(Apr. 15, 2020), https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/04/15/for-greater-
chaco-communities-air-pollution-compounds-covid-19-threat/. These same 
Navajo people and organizations continue to be vocal in support of 
protecting Chaco, and some Navajo Council Delegates are included in 
this group.
    \4\ Once the issue was brought to Navajo leadership, Navajo 
leadership thereafter informed the Bureau of Land Management of the 
concerns. Letter from Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation, and 
Jonathan Nez, Vice President, Navajo Nation, to Bureau of Land Mgmt., 
Dep't of Interior (Feb. 6, 2017) (``Re Concerns Regarding Chaco Canyon 
Cultural Historic Park'').
    \5\ In a historic collaborative effort, the Navajo Nation and the 
Pueblos met in February 2017 government-to-government and mutually 
committed to working together. Press Release, Navajo Nation, OPVP 
Protect Chaco Canyon Region Through Collaboration with All Pueblo 
Council of Governors (Feb. 24, 2017), https://www.navajo-nsn.gov/
news%20releases/opvp/2017/feb/opvp% 
20protect%20chaco%20canyon%20region%20through%20collaboration%20with%20a
ll%20pueblo %20council%20of%20governors.pdf.

    The Pueblos and the Navajo Nation agreed to advocate for withdrawal 
of federal land from future mineral leasing and development within the 
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area, and we further agreed to 
preserve the rights of Tribal Nations and allottees to develop on their 
land even within this withdrawal area.\6\ The Pueblos have never 
strayed beyond these agreed-upon protections. The Pueblos do not and 
have never advocated for withdrawing other Tribal Nations' land or 
allotment land from development, and we have supported all efforts to 
make clear that a withdrawal would not prevent tribal or allottee 
landowners from developing on their land. Further, we have limited our 
request to withdraw federal land to only a small, critical area of the 
Greater Chaco Region. As the entire area is a sacred landscape, we view 
withdrawal of the 10-mile withdrawal area as a minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Navajo Nation's and the Pueblos' staff worked with Senator 
Udall's Office to create federal legislation to permanently protect the 
withdrawal area--and this effort became the Chaco Cultural Heritage 
Area Protection Act. In April 2018, the Navajo Nation and Pueblos again 
met government-to-government to formally review and approve the 
language of the legislation. The outcome was a critical compromise to 
support the withdrawal of federal land from future development but to 
preserve the rights of the Navajo Nation and Navajo allottees to 
develop on their own land. The Navajo Nation and the Pueblos together 
supported the introduction of the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area 
Protection Act of 2018, S. 2907; its reintroduction as the Chaco 
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019, S. 1079 and H.R. 2181, 
with additional protections for the Navajo Nation's and Navajo 
allottees' development rights; and the legislation's movement through 
Congress toward enactment, including by giving congressional testimony, 
see, e.g., Written Testimony of Myron Lizer, Vice President, Navajo 
Nation, Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019: Hearing on 
H.R. 2181 Before the Subcomm. on Nat'l Parks, Forests, and Pub. Lands 
(June 5, 2019), https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Lizer,%20Myron%20-%20Written%20Testimony.pdf.

    Additionally, the withdrawal is but one aspect of the Pueblos' 
efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region. Among other measures, the 
Pueblos advocated to the Department of the Interior (Department) and 
then to Congress for federal funding to complete a tribally-led 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cultural resource study of the Greater Chaco Region.

    We were able to secure sufficient funding for both the Navajo 
Nation and the Pueblos, in conjunction with the Hopi Tribe, to complete 
such studies, and the studies are now underway.

    In recent years, some within the Navajo Nation have broken with the 
previously established Navajo position in favor of the Chaco 
withdrawal. The Pueblos have sought a government-to-government meeting 
with the Navajo Nation to address these issues, but our requests have 
not been answered.\7\ However, we were able to submit testimony to the 
Navajo Council describing the long-standing partnership between the 
Navajo Nation and the Pueblos with regard to Chaco protections and how 
the withdrawal is designed to protect tribal and allottee development 
rights.\8\ We would warmly welcome a meeting with the Navajo Nation to 
discuss our collaborative efforts to protect the Greater Chaco Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See, e.g., Letter from Mark Mitchell, Chairman, All Pueblo 
Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation (Feb. 
10, 2022) (requesting meeting and access to Navajo land for tribally 
led cultural resource study); Letter from Wilfred Herrera Jr., 
Chairman, All Pueblo Council of Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, 
Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Apr. 15, 2021) 
(requesting meeting to discuss continued partnership to protect Chaco); 
Letter from J. Michael Chavarria, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of 
Governors, to Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation, and Seth Damon, 
Speaker, Navajo Nation (Jan. 30, 2020) (same).
    \8\ Letter from E. Paul Torres, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of 
Governors, to Exec. Dir., Off. of Legis. Servs., Navajo Nation, and 
Seth Damon, Speaker, Navajo Nation (Dec. 11, 2019) (providing testimony 
on Navajo Legislation No. 0366-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Effects of Administrative Withdrawal on Tribal and Allotment Land

    As a consequence of advocacy by the Pueblos and others, and in line 
with the protections agreed upon with the Navajo Nation, the Department 
has announced that it is considering withdrawing for a 20-year term 
351,479.97 acres of public land and interests located in an 
approximately 10-mile withdrawal area surrounding the Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park and including its outliers.\9\ Such public 
land would be withdrawn from location and entry under the United States 
mining laws and from leasing under the mineral leasing laws but not 
from disposal under the mineral materials laws, and the withdrawal 
would be subject to valid existing rights. According to the 
Department's notice, the purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the 
landscape rich in tribal cultural legacy from the impacts of oil and 
gas development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan 
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022).

    The administrative withdrawal contemplated by the Department goes 
no further than the protections agreed upon between the Pueblos and the 
Navajo Nation. It would be limited to the 10-mile withdrawal area and 
would withdraw only public land; it would not apply to tribal or 
allotment land.\10\ Further, even on federal land otherwise withdrawn, 
ongoing development would be permitted to continue, as withdrawal is 
subject to valid existing rights.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1702(j), 1714 (only providing authority for withdrawal of 
federal land); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land 
Management Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), 
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-
steps-protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential 
withdrawal . . . would not apply to minerals owned by private, state, 
or Tribal entities.'').
    \11\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1701 note (stating withdrawal is subject to valid existing 
rights); Press Release, Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management 
Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://
www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-
protect-chaco-canyon (``The two-year segregation and potential 
withdrawal would not affect existing valid leases . . . .'').

    Additionally, completion of the Department's administrative 
withdrawal would only make more permanent the current status quo. 
Dating back to at least the Obama administration, an informal pause was 
put in place to prevent new oil and gas leasing and development on 
federal land in the withdrawal area. After a brief but worrisome period 
of reversal that required significant advocacy by the Pueblos and 
others, the Trump Administration also put in place a similar pause.\12\ 
And, since December 2019, Congress through appropriations legislation 
has maintained a moratorium preventing new oil and gas leasing and 
development on federal land in the withdrawal area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Press Release, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Heinrich Secures 
Commitments from Interior Secretary to Protect Chaco Canyon (May 28, 
2019), https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-secures-
commitments-from-interior-secretary-to-protect-chaco-canyon.
    \13\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260 
Sec. 430 (2020) (containing following language for Fiscal Year 2021: 
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to accept a 
nomination for oil and gas leasing under 43 CFR 3120.3 et seq, or to 
offer for oil and gas leasing, any federal lands within the withdrawal 
area identified on the map of the Chaco Culture National Historical 
Park prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and dated April 2, 2019, 
prior to the completion of the cultural resources investigation 
identified in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the 
matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).''); Further 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub L. No. 116-94 Sec. 442 
(2019) (containing identical language for Fiscal Year 2020).

    Last, examining the landownership map of the withdrawal area,\14\ 
it is clear that almost all allotments abut non-federal land that would 
not be withdrawn. Further, when allotments do touch federal land, often 
there is already ongoing development on that federal land that would 
not be prevented by the withdrawal.\15\ Thus, there will be very few 
allotments isolated by surrounding withdrawn federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
    \15\ Bureau of Land Mgmt., Proposed Withdrawal, Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park Surrounding Area (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016892/200507919/20052736/250058919/
ProposedChacoAreaWithdrawalMap_FFO_1_06_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Additional Tribal Consultation and Commenting Opportunities 
        Preceding Completion of Administrative Withdrawal

    Inherent in the Department's administrative withdrawal process will 
be opportunities for further consideration of the voices of the 
Pueblos, Navajo Nation, allottees, and others.

    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) administrative 
withdrawal process under which the Department is considering the Chaco 
administrative withdrawal involves significant public comment and 
consideration.\16\ For withdrawals the size contemplated by the 
Department for Chaco, the Department must provide public comment 
opportunities and conduct environmental review, and it must provide a 
detailed report to Congress regarding analysis of the impacts of 
withdrawal.\17\ Indeed, when President Biden in November 2021 announced 
that the Department would begin the administrative withdrawal process, 
the Department said it would be conducting an environmental analysis, 
seeking public comment, and conducting tribal consultation on the 
proposed administrative withdrawal.\18\ Thereafter, on January 6, 2022, 
the Bureau of Land Management published notice of the proposed 
withdrawal in the Federal Register, formally beginning the withdrawal 
process and opening a 90-day comment period.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1714(c)(1).
    \17\ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1714(c); 43 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 2310.1-2310.5.
    \18\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Interior, Secretary Haaland 
Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant 
Chaco Canyon Landscape (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-
culturally-significant-chaco.
    \19\ Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Meetings; San Juan 
County, NM, 87 Fed. Reg. 785 (Jan. 6, 2022); see also Press Release, 
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Bureau of Land Management Takes Next Steps to 
Protect Chaco Canyon (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.blm.gov/press-release/
bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-protect-chaco-canyon; see also 
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Chaco Culture National Historical Park Area 
Withdrawal (Jan. 25, 2022), https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2016892/510.

    Additionally, it is important to note that the withdrawal 
contemplated by the Department has been the subject of multiple 
congressional hearings, including a field hearing, through 
consideration of the Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.\20\ We also 
understand that members of the New Mexico Congressional Delegation and 
officials within the Department of the Interior have met with the 
Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and others on the withdrawal and other 
Chaco protection efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See note 6, supra.

    In closing, we thank this Committee for its attention to 
appropriate protective measures for the Greater Chaco Region. It is a 
deeply sacred and irreplaceable landscape to which our identity is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tied.

                                 ______
                                 

                         THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

                                                   February 7, 2022

The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman
The Honorable Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and all Members 
of the House Committee on Natural Resources:

    On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The 
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express our appreciation and views 
regarding the oversight hearing titled, ``Justice, Equity, Diversity, 
and Inclusion in Environmental Policymaking: The Role of Environmental 
Organizations and Grantmaking Foundations'' on February 8, 2022.

    Public lands and waters are often seen as a defining feature of our 
nation's shared heritage and character. However, throughout our 
history, racism, exclusion, oppression, and injustices have 
traditionally shaped the policies, operations, and funding that have 
excluded and inequitably distributed the benefits of nature. While 
America's national parks, wildlife refuges, cultural heritage sites, 
and other public lands and waters continue to be popular with many, 
they are often inaccessible, unwelcoming, and exclusionary particularly 
for systemically and deliberately overlooked populations such as 
communities of color, disabled populations, low-income communities, 
Indigenous peoples, and LGBTQ+ communities.

    Dialogue and research consistently shows that people from all 
backgrounds and communities are interested in the environment and 
addressing climate change. However, people of color, Indigenous 
peoples, and low-income communities are most impacted by environmental 
injustices and climate change all while being the least represented in 
policy and decision making. Some of the most consequential and 
ubiquitously valued ideas of conservation and public land policies are 
rooted in racist origins and concepts. Many of these policies continue 
to have harmful and inequitable implications for communities of color 
today. As the environmental movement aims to expand and progress, we 
have an opportunity to address these inequities and improve 
policymaking and implementation to ensure the benefits of nature are 
equitably afforded to all.

    Now more than ever, it is imperative to ensure that public lands 
are delivering on the benefits that were promised to every person, 
regardless of their income, race, or zip code. From health and wellness 
to climate mitigation and resilience, public lands offer a myriad of 
benefits that should be to the advantage of all people and communities, 
not just a few. That is why TWS has committed to respectfully and 
authentically engaging and empowering communities that have been 
historically marginalized in the conservation movement or have not 
equitably benefited from our public lands. Through policy and 
programmatic work based in community-led conservation and equitable 
access to nature that centers diversity, equity, justice, and 
inclusion, our organization and community will build a more welcoming 
and inclusive movement for environmental stewardship and public lands 
protection that is long-lasting and resilient.

    We know that our journey toward building a more diverse and 
inclusive organization and movement is still in the initial stages. Our 
advancement has not been perfect; however, we understand the importance 
and urgency of creating a more just, diverse, equitable, and inclusive 
system for managing and protecting our public lands. As one of the many 
conservation and environmental organizations working to ensure diverse 
representation and decision-making power regarding public lands, it is 
essential that we remain diligent because our collective determination 
will have an immense impact on our communities and our planet.

    TWS appreciates Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Natural Resources 
Committee, and staff's leadership for engaging and centering Black, 
Indigenous, and people of color communities to meaningfully address the 
climate crises and achieve environmental justice. We look forward to 
continuing to work with the committee to advance more just, equitable, 
diverse, and inclusive natural resource and climate policies.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Mo Dailey,
                            Vice President of Conservation Programs

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

Dear White Enviros: You can't fight climate change without communities

of color

THE HILL, February 8, 2022

By Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Andres Jimenez, Opinion 
Contributors

    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view 
of the Hill

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


In the summer of 2020, amid America's national reckoning with its 
white supremacism and systemic racism, lovers of nature and 
conservation began to ask questions about how our national parks and 
other public lands fit into this reckoning.

They took a closer look at beautiful, nationally prized landscapes, 
like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park, that reflect the work 
of early conservationists who envisioned vast protected swaths of 
pristine, untouched wilderness for future generations to enjoy.

And then they saw the truth. When conservationists claimed these lands, 
they were already richly inhabited by Indigenous Peoples who had had 
been cultivating, conserving, and connecting with them since time 
immemorial.

But conservationists' vision for these landscapes did not include 
Indigenous Peoples. Armed with this belief and other racist ideals, 
white people and government leaders embarked on the violent, forcible 
removal of Indigenous communities from their ancestral homelands.

Environmental and social justice champions like us can't pretend that 
our feelings about America's conservation history aren't complicated. 
How can we appreciate a movement that created places of refuge for both 
humans and wildlife when that same movement tried to erase the 
existence of Indigenous Peoples from those very places?

Unfortunately, modern day conservation efforts haven't fully removed 
this stain on its history; environmental non-governmental organizations 
(NGOs) continue to be white-dominant spaces, perpetuating--albeit more 
subtly--the stigma of the past.

A groundbreaking 2014 report by Green 2.0, an independent non-profit 
organization that aims to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the 
environmental sphere, showed that only one in eight NGO staff were 
people of color. More alarmingly, only one in 20 board members were of 
color.

Green 2.0 and the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources know we 
need a change. On Feb. 8, the committee is holding a congressional 
hearing to talk to some of the country's foremost experts about the 
environmental movement's diversity problem and its impacts on federal 
environmental policymaking.

The committee will have new data on hand from Green 2.0's most recent 
2021 Transparency Report Card showing that, while NGOs have made some 
progress in diversifying staff over the past several years, NGO 
leadership is still nearly 75 percent white. This lopsided scenario 
isn't an unfamiliar pattern. When organizations work to increase 
diversity simply for diversity's sake, but don't make transformational 
changes that bring more inclusivity, justice, and equity to the 
workplace, their efforts fall short.

For the first time this year, the report also examined where 
environmental grantmaking foundations are sending their money. The 
results were disappointing, but not surprising. The foundations that 
were willing to respond reported funding white-led environmental NGOs 
at nearly double the rate of NGOs led by people of color.

Witnesses at the hearing will talk about how environmental NGOs and 
foundations can do better--not just because it's the right thing to do, 
but because the climate crisis requires it. Those most impacted by an 
issue must be at the table when finding solutions to address it.

Communities of color and Indigenous Peoples are overwhelmingly on the 
frontlines of climate change; they're the ones bearing the brunt of 
higher temperatures, sea level rise, and stronger and more frequent 
severe weather events, including hurricanes and heatwaves. They're the 
ones whose communities have been infiltrated by polluting petrochemical 
plants and fossil fuel production facilities. Yet, they're also the 
ones who are being left out when environmental organizations are 
deciding how they'll address climate change.

Excluding Indigenous voices from the conservation conversation is 
especially misguided. Indigenous Peoples maintain an invaluable wealth 
of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ITEK) that has been 
accumulated through their relationship with the natural world and 
passed down through oral and written histories. ITEK should be at the 
forefront of solutions for more sustainable and responsible stewardship 
of our environment. The White House recently issued an executive order 
to formally recognize ITEK as a body of knowledge that should inform 
federal decision-making; environmental NGOs should follow a similar 
course.

We can't change the American environmental movement's dark history of 
white supremacy. But if we want to light a sustainable and equitable 
path through the climate crisis, the environmental movement must close 
shop on the ivory tower and open the door to more diverse voices for a 
more just and inclusive future.

                                  ***

    Raul M. Grijalva chairs the U.S. House Committee on Natural 
Resources. He has represented Southern Arizona in Congress since 2003. 
Andres Jimenez is the executive director of Green 2.0.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Delegate Freeland

              Proposed Navajo Nation Committee Resolution

                  from the 24th Navajo Nation Council

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    .eps If the proposed resolution is unacceptable to you, please 
contact me at the Office of Legislative Counsel and advise me of the 
changes you would like made to the proposed resolution.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______
                                 

                       24TH NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

                         OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

                                                       May 20, 2021

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Chairwoman (D-NV)
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Office
304 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Honorable Senator Cortez, and Honorable Senator Lee:

    This letter serves as a humble invitation from the 24th Navajo 
Nation Council Speaker Seth Damon, and the Resources Development 
Committee to request a formal meeting in person within the Eastern 
Agency of the Navajo Nation, to discuss continued partnership in 
regards to greater Chaco Canyon National Heritage Monument region.

    The initial Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2017 
(hereafter, CCHAPA) was a congressional bill that identified and set 
precedence within the intercultural heritage that all tribal nations 
share throughout the greater southwest. This particular act also made 
note and emphasized the potential impacts to our Navajo people in 
relation to the ongoing development of gas and oil within the Eastern 
Agency of the Navajo Nation.

    Since time immemorial, our sacred ceremonial and clan origin 
historical connection to Chaco Canyon has, and continues to be the 
center points of what Chaco Canyon is today. Through our Navajo 
language, oral histories, as stated in much of the statements within 
the CCHAPA, speak to our history as mentioned are indeed, ``invaluable 
and irreplaceable cultural resources.''

    With that stated, there is also the acknowledgement of our current 
heritage which includes our Navajo allotees who have direct stakeholder 
ship within and around Chaco Canyon National Heritage Monument. Navajo 
Nation fully supports the allotees and their rights to develop their 
land and any leasing they wish to undergo as landowners and as direct 
stakeholders within the Navajo Nation Eastern Agency.

    In the fall of 2019, Legislation 0366-19 was approved by the 24th 
Navajo Nation Council which affirmed the position of the Navajo Nation 
through its governing body. This legislation solidified the cultural, 
spiritual and cosmological connection that the Navajo Nation and the 
people have to the greater Chaco Canyon region area. Further, it 
established a collective voice that expounded upon the efforts of not 
only protecting the landscape of Chaco Canyon, but to also respect and 
work with Navajo allottees to further advance development, as well as 
protection of our precious resources. As a result, this legislation 
passed in support of all of the above, which included a position of 
setting the boundary of a 5-mile buffer within and around the greater 
Chaco Canyon National Heritage Monument area.

    The 24th Navajo Nation Council's Resources and Development 
Committee therefore respectfully and rightfully request that the Navajo 
Nation Legislation 0366-19 be adhered to as the official position and 
continued efforts to collaboratively manage Navajo Nation lands, and 
minerals, while also respecting the allotees rights to develop their 
land.

    With collaborative efforts, we would like to extend an invitation 
to the Energy Natural Resources Subcommittee of jurisdiction and the 
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining leadership to 
participate in a field hearing in Navajo Eastern Agency. This hearing 
would assist in the ongoing collaborations of the Navajo Nation and 
your subcommittee and leadership in regards to hearing the Navajo 
Allotees positions and voices on these matters.
    Your participation will greatly present to our people that 
leadership from both the federal and the Navajo Nation, are working 
together to continue advocacy for the betterment of all our 
constituents. Please do not hesitate to reach out to the Chief of 
Staff, Sherylene Yazzie at the Office of the Speaker, 
[email protected] or the Resources and Development 
Committee Chair, Rick Nez at [email protected] if you should have 
any questions. We look forward to your response and look forward to an 
in-person meeting with our Navajo Nation allotees. Ahe hee'

            Sincerely,

        Seth Damon, Speaker,          Rickie Nez, Chairman,
        24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL    RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
                                      24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

        Mark Freeland, Vice 
        Chairman,
        EASTERN NAVAJO LAND 
        COMMISSION
        24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

                                 ______
                                 

                       24TH NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

                         OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

                                                 September 17, 2021

        The Honorable Nancy Pelosi    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
        Speaker                       House Minority Leader
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        H-232 Capitol Building        H-404 Capitol Building
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy:

    We applaud Congress for its historic inclusion of tribal program 
investments in the proposed $3.5 trillion budget resolution and 
reconciliation proposals. However, we write to respectfully inform you 
of our opposition to the managers amendment of the House Natural 
Resources Committee proposal that includes a section to prohibit new 
oil and gas development within the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area in 
northwestern New Mexico and the Navajo Nation.
    In the fall of 2019, Legislation 0366-19 (attached) was approved by 
the 24th Navajo Nation Council, which affirmed the position of the 
Navajo Nation through its governing body. The legislation solidified 
the cultural, spiritual and cosmological connection that the Navajo 
Nation and the people have to the greater Chaco Canyon region area. 
Further, Legislation 0366-19 established a collective voice that 
expounded upon the efforts of not only protecting the landscape of 
Chaco Canyon, but to also respect and work with Navajo allottees to 
further advance development, as well as protection of our precious 
resources. As a result, this legislation passed in support of all the 
above, which included a position of setting the boundary of a 5-mile 
buffer within and around the greater Chaco Canyon National Heritage 
Monument area.
    In the summer of 2019, Legislation 0189-19 (attached) was also 
approved by the 24th Navajo Nation Council authorizing and requiring 
Navajo Nation leadership to meet with Congressional leadership to 
request Congress to hold hearings in the affected areas of the Navajo 
Nation, which has not been completed.
    The official position of the Navajo Nation reflects the interests 
of the Navajo allotted land owners (``allotees'') in the greater Chaco 
area and it provides a compromise between the threat to their 
livelihoods and the bills' calls for increased protections from mineral 
development.
    There are numerous Navajo cultural resources sites across the 
eastern portion of the Navajo Nation where Navajo allottees will 
potentially be impacted. The proposed cultural resource investigation 
(``study'') that is to be performed by cultural experts within the 
Chaco Canyon and Chaco Culture National Historic Park, should fully 
fund the Navajo Nation to oversee due to the land status that surrounds 
the Park is all within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation.
    The 24th Navajo Nation Council respectfully submits another request 
for a Congressional field hearing at Nageezi, N.M. by members of 
Congress before any language prohibiting new oil and gas development 
within the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area. The purpose of this field 
hearing will allow Congressional leaders to hear directly from the 
Navajo people who face a real threat under the current version of the 
managers amendment of the House Natural Resources Committee proposal 
that includes a section to prohibit new oil and gas development within 
the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area.
    Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact 
Chief of Staff Sherylene Yazzie at [email protected]. The 
Navajo Nation Office of the Speaker will respectfully follow-up with 
your offices within two weeks regarding this request. Thank you for 
your honorable consideration.

            Sincerely,

        Seth Damon, Speaker,          Rickie Nez, Chair,
        24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL    RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

        Mark Freeland, Council 
        Delegate,
        24th NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL

                                 ______
                                 

             MAP OF CHACO CULTURAL HERITAGE WITHDRAWAL AREA

                             April 2, 2019

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           THE NAVAJO NATION

                                                  November 24, 2021

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20515
    Dear President Biden:

    On behalf of the Navajo Nation, we write to state our position to 
the proposed withdrawal of federal lands from new oil and gas leasing 
in the Greater Chaco Area and to request an immediate conference with 
the Department of the Interior.
    Congress has considered multiple proposals to create a buffer zone 
around the Chaco Culture National Historical Park at the request of the 
All Pueblo Council of Governors but continues to ignore the desires of 
the Navajo people whose land would actually be impacted by such a 
decision. This issue is important to the Navajo Nation; specifically, 
to our Navajo allotment owners.
    There are currently 53 Individual Indian Allotments (allotments) 
leased in the 10-mile buffer zone around Chaco based on the latest map 
proposed in the legislation considered by Congress. These allotments 
generate an average of $6.2 million a year in royalties for 
approximately 5,462 allottees. Many allottees, including Navajo elders, 
rely on this income to meet their daily needs. However, the gravity of 
this decision is much larger as there are 418 unleased allotments 
associated with approximately 16,615 allottees. So, this rule could 
impact over 22,000 allottees.
    The White House has stated, as did Congress, that the rule would 
not apply to Individual Indian Allotments or to minerals within the 
area owned by private, state, and Tribal entities. However, in reality, 
the rule would have a devastating impact because the indirect effects 
would make the allottee land worthless from the standpoint of energy 
extraction. For example, the Mancos Shale reservoir lies south of 
Counselor, Huerfano and Nageezi Chapters and north of the Chaco Park. 
To maximize full extraction of the product, a horizontal lateral 
crossing of two to four miles of subsurface may be required. Due to the 
cross jurisdictional land status in Navajo Eastern Agency, a proposed 
horizontal lateral may need to cross federal land. But the Department 
of the Interior has already told us that any horizontal drilling that 
requires access through federal lands would be prohibited under the 
proposed rules.
    In fact, the existing temporary ban on leasing have already 
impacted our people, as energy companies have told some of our Navajo 
allottees that they will not pursue exploratory drilling unless they 
know they can access the sites using horizontal drilling through the 
federal lands. Because of the ban, something that was once the most 
valuable marketing of our lands is now in jeopardy of becoming an 
unproductive piece of property.
    In trying to negotiate with our Congressional representatives, the 
Navajo Nation Council passed legislation that agreed to reduce the size 
of the 10-mile buffer zone to 5 miles to reduce the impact on Navajo 
allottees. We are willing to continue discussions with the federal 
government but announcing this initiative at the White House Tribal 
Nations Summit, knowing that that Navajo Nation Council and Local 
Navajo Government entities has passed resolutions in opposition, was an 
unwarranted affront to the Navajo Nation.
    We are also mystified by the fact that only one listening session 
with 10 allottees was held in July with Assistant Secretary of Indian 
Affairs Bryan Newland as a way to support tribal engagement in the U.S. 
Department of the Interior's press release issued November 11, 2021. 
Even more disturbing is hearing the Department of the Interior commit 
to ``early, robust, interactive, pre-decisional, informative, and 
transparent'' tribal consultation when essentially no tribal 
consultation has been held with critical stakeholders in this case. By 
simply bypassing true and inclusive tribal consultation with the Navajo 
Nation and our Individual Indian Allottees, the Biden-Harris 
Administration is markedly undermining its trust responsibility they 
owe to the Navajo Nation and the 22,000 Individual Indian Allottees 
impacted by this decision.
    To evince respect to us as a sovereign government and people we 
insist you not to move forward on this initiative without first 
reaching an agreement with the duly elected leaders of those affected 
by it. We ask that you engage in proper tribal consultation before 
publishing the proposed withdrawal in the Federal Register and 
reconsider the proposed withdrawal.

            Respectfully,

        Jonathan Nez, President,      Myron Lizer, Vice President,
        THE NAVAJO NATION             THE NAVAJO NATION

                                 ______
                                 

                    U.S. Department of the Interior

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                          Washington, DC 20240

                                                 September 24, 2020

Hon. Jonathan Nez
President, Navajo Nation
P.O. Box 7440
Window Rock, AZ 86515

    Dear President Nez:

    In 2019, Congress made $1,000,000 available to contract with 
relevant federally recognized Tribes or Tribal organizations to allow 
Tribal cultural experts to perform a cultural resources investigation 
to identify culturally and historically significant areas and sites in 
areas of high energy development potential within the Chaco Canyon 
region of the Southwest.\1\ Congress expected that such investigation 
would give special emphasis to areas of high development potential as 
defined in Figure 10 of the Bureau of Land Management's February 2018 
Final Report, ``Reasonable Development Scenario of Oil and Gas 
Activities'' for the Mancos-Gallup RMPA Planning Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Public Law No. 116-94; S. Rpt. 116-123 at 17, 56.

    Congress directed that the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-
IA) consult with affected Tribes prior to soliciting proposals and 
award funds within 270 days of Pub. L. 116-94's enactment. Indian 
Affairs consulted with Tribes on the Chaco Canyon cultural resources 
investigation on March 5th and 6th of this year. The consultations made 
clear that the two main Tribal perspectives regarding culturally and 
historically significant sites in the Chaco Canyon area were 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
represented by the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos.

    My letters of July 27, 2020 inviting the Navajo Nation and the 
Pueblos to submit proposals to conduct the cultural resources 
investigation by September 8, 2020 strongly encouraged all parties to 
consider submitting a joint proposal or otherwise ensuring that any 
study fully represent both perspectives. That has not occurred, and 
instead two separate proposals for preparing the cultural resources 
investigation were submitted by the Navajo Nation and by the Chaco 
Heritage Tribal Association (CHTA), an unincorporated association of 
representative Pueblos and the Hopi Tribe. In deference to the course 
chosen by the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos, and to ensure that the 
views of the relevant federally recognized Tribes or Tribal 
organizations are represented as Congress intended, each applicant will 
be awarded a portion of the funding.
    Having reviewed the Navajo Nation's submission, I am pleased to 
notify you that the Nation will be awarded the amount identified below 
to undertake the cultural resources investigation and prepare a 
comprehensive report identifying culturally and historically 
significant areas and sites:

                       Award Amount: $434,356.00

    This award is contingent upon the Nation providing certain 
information that the Nation did not include in its submission, 
including an estimate of overall costs to complete the study broken 
down by category (e.g., labor, materials), and the identity and 
credentials of the associated individuals/staff who will be assigned to 
perform the study.

    Nothing in this award is intended to impact the timing of the 
Mancos-Gallup Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA).

    The award funds are provided to the Nation under Pub. L. 116-94 and 
will be administered in accordance with the Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards.\2\ The Nation may contribute additional funding from its own or 
other sources to the cultural resource investigation study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 2 C.F.R. Part 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Grant Agreement will be sent to you for your signature. Please 
return the signed Grant Agreement and the missing information listed 
above to the Grant Officer, Jo Ann Metcalfe, by four weeks from the 
date of this letter. The grant agreement authorizes the transfer of 
funds to the Navajo Nation through the Automated Standard Application 
for Payments (ASAP). The grant agreement must be fully executed by both 
parties before project work can begin. We will notify you once the 
funds have been transferred to ASAP.

Grant Officer:

        Jo Ann Metcalfe
        Bureau of Indian Affairs
        12220 Sunrise Valley Drive
        Reston, VA 20191
        Email: [email protected]
        Phone: (703) 390-6410

    Mr. Garry Cantley, Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Regional 
Office, will serve as the Project Monitor, and will be available to 
discuss and advise on technical issues relating to the project. All 
written correspondence concerning the project should be addressed to 
the Project Monitor.

Project Monitor:

        Garry Cantley
        Division of Environmental, Safety, and Cultural Resources
        BIA Western Regional Office
        2600 N. Central Avenue
        Phoenix, AZ 85004
        T: (602) 379-6750
        Email: [email protected]

    I am pleased to provide you with the opportunity to undertake this 
important study. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. 
Matthew Kelly, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, by 
email at [email protected] or phone at (202) 208-7163.

            Sincerely,

                                              Tara Sweeney,
                                Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs

                                 [all]